[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27484-28121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-80503]



MTC-00024449

From: Keith B. Bassett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    Hello,
    I am writing to address the possible settlement of the US vs 
Microsoft case. Simply put, the current remedy worries me. If we 
subscribe to a strictly behavioral punishment for a company which 
has been proven a monopoly, then how can we design it so that the 
changing face of technology doesn't allow Microsoft to sidestep it? 
Because of the volatile nature of the field of technology, and 
because of Microsoft's proven habit of undermining or purchasing 
competitors, how can any behavioral punishment forsee the direction 
that the company will move? Microsoft has shown great ingenuity in 
getting around this sort of punishment in the past, and the current 
remedy doesn't appear to be properly drawn to prevent Microsoft from 
doing so again.
    I still subscribe to the idea that a structural remedy would be 
the best course of action. A dissolution of the company into parts 
that could compete with each other would seem to produce the 
greatest economic good for the largest number of consumers and 
companies. Microsoft would produce better products without the 
stranglehold on the oem market that they currently hold. Oems would 
have the option of going with several varieties or flavors of the 
current Microsoft offerings, which would cause serious competition 
and improvement in the OS offerings. Bugs would be fixed quickly, 
and the basic solidity of the OS offerings would increase at a 
similar rate, as the companies struggled for position. File formats 
might still be a weapon against competitors, but without one clear 
leader, the level of interoperability would be a serious selling 
point. Currently the Office offerings import all documents 
perfectly, but cannot export to other formats without major 
problems, even ostensibly ``open'' formats. However, it 
appears that the structural remedies have been discarded in favor of 
action which will be perceived as less drastic. Perhaps some 
appropriate remedies include the dissolution of the current OEM 
preload aggrements, with a prohibition of future ones. The Microsoft 
office suite data file formats could be placed into the public 
domain, with future format changes coming under review from an 
independent open standards body. The .NET formats, interconnects and 
standards could be placed under the overview of an independent open 
standards body, as could the Microsoft networking protocols.
    A drastic, but effective solution would be the seizure and 
relicensing of the core source code for the range of Microsoft's 
OSes. If they were relicensed under an open source license they 
would remain available regardless of the changes made to them. This, 
while extreme, would allow for the use of the code by the entire 
marketplace and increase competition in other areas, forcing 
Microsoft to compete elsewhere. These solutions may seem extreme, 
but they depend upon the fact that Microsoft has a proven monopoly 
which was obtained by illegal means. If they did not have a monopoly 
or if it was retained legally these rules would not apply.
    If an effective long term remedy is not obtained, then Microsoft 
will have been given implicit permission to continue their current 
and former business practices. In fact it will be an endorsement of 
them and will endanger what little remaining commercial competition 
they have. I don't know what this will mean for other big companies 
in the information business, but it certainly gives them a 
frightening level of control of the American public's access to 
those companies and to information in general.
    Thanks for your time, I know that this was a simple and general 
letter, but I wanted to let you know what the general public was 
feeling.
    Keith B. Bassett



MTC-00024450

From: James M. Moe
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/25/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree.
    Microsoft is a monopoly as found in the original judgment. While 
not a bad thing in itself, Microsoft has persistently abused its 
position to the detriment of the computer and software industries. 
Further it is contemptuous of the prevailing laws and openly 
continues its abusive practices.



MTC-00024451

From: Dankovits, Kris
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the Microsoft settlement. It is a foolish move, 
designed to help only Microsoft.
    Kris Dankovits



MTC-00024452

From: Ryan Lucier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think Microsoft develops O.K products, but getting rid of 
competition is not a good practice.



MTC-00024453

From: Don Ramier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I would like to have my comment entered into the Federal 
Register as required by the provisions of the Tunney Act (Antitrust 
Procedures and Penalties Act) with respect to the proposed 
``settlement'' of the Microsoft Corporation anti-trust 
case.
    Since Microsoft has shown absolutely no remorse or change in 
business attitudes following the 1995 anti-trust decision rendered 
against it, and has been found to be in contempt of court regarding 
subsequent violations, business activities, business strategies, and 
programs, I hope and pray that the Federal Government will deny the 
validity of this settlement on many grounds, including and not 
limited to the one mentioned above.
    This provisions of this settlement are unenforceable. The 
penalties cannot be enforced, monitored, or even imposed upon the 
Microsoft Corporation.
    I never wanted to have a browser supplied by Microsoft 
Corporation with their operating system forcibly imposed on my 
property, my Personal Computer, called Internet Explorer. I use 
Netscape, a competitor of Microsoft's. My computer fails to operate 
properly due to malicious engineering by the operating system 
(Windows) when I respond that I don't want to use Internet Explorer 
as my default browser. How can I be sure that the I.E. code is to 
blame? How can the provisions of this settlement be enforced? 
Computer programming can be ``transparent to the user'' 
and can cause lingering damage, and even crippling effects on the 
property of people like myself, if I don't answer the questions the 
way the code interprets I should. How can situations like this be 
monitored by the U.S. Government, or by anybody else, for that 
matter? This is just one of many examples I could use to describe 
the performance (or lack thereof) of my property, my Personal 
Computer, when maimed by any number of versions of the Windows 
operating system. I am a technical writer by trade, and it is my job 
to document highly technical programming code of sophisticated 
software applications. Over the last twenty years, I have been 
employed by the International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), 
the Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) and three smaller software 
development corporations. I have been very well trained to know what 
the code is supposed to do, and what the code is NOT supposed to do 
(the actions and mistaken actions of programming code).
    In these twenty years of computer related technical writing 
experience, I have seen the emergence of the operating system named 
DOS (short for Disk Operating System) that Microsoft created for 
delivery on the IBM PC, the evolution of DOS to Windows, and, over 
time, the gradual, yet perceivable, encroachment of the Windows 
operating environment on my ability to perform my specified tasks 
within the framework needed. Jumps from versions of operating 
systems affected the performance of other applications that should 
not have been affected and this caused much delay in the delivering 
of my services to my employers in a timely manner.
    How can the U.S. Government hope to understand, much less 
enforce, the terms of this proposed settlement on the intricacies of 
the Windows operating environment and the thousands upon thousands 
of lines of code? It is inconceivable to me that the U.S. 
Government, in all it's might and glory, cannot see that this 
settlement is just a cop out and is not justice, but an appeasement 
to the monolithic Microsoft Corporation.
    For these and other reasons, I hereby voice my concern over the 
terms of the proposed settlement and ask that remedial steps be 
taken to truly and justly dismantle the monopolistic Microsoft 
Corporation by force of law.
    Sincerely,
    Don A. Ramier, III
    Documentation Specialist
    Geobot, Inc.
    Memphis, Tennessee

[[Page 27485]]



MTC-00024454

From: Jonathan Kamens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have been developing computer software for Windows, Linux and 
other operating systems for over fifteen years.
    I have reviewed the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in United 
States v. Microsoft. In my opinion, the remedies outlined in that 
judgment are inconsistent with the Finding of Facts in the case and 
will not achieve the required goals of eliminating Microsoft's 
anticompetitive conduct and making it possible for other software 
vendors to compete with Microsoft on an even playing field in the 
future.
    To mention just one of the many problems with the PFJ, it 
stipulates that Microsoft must document Windows API's so that 
competitors can write software which uses those API's to 
interoperate with Windows, but (a) the definition of what 
constitutes ``API's'' and therefore must be documented is 
just plain wrong, (b) there are no requirements on when API's must 
be documented, and hence Microsoft may be so slow in documenting 
them as to make it impossible for other software vendors to take 
advantage of the documentation in time to compete effectively. 
Furthermore, the terms of the PFJ and of Microsoft's own end-user 
license agreements would seem to imply that Microsoft can continue 
to prohibit other software vendors from implementing and/or using 
emulations of Windows API's on non-Windows operating systems. For 
example, even under the PFJ the legality of the ``WINE'' 
Windows emulator for linux would still be questionable, despite the 
fact that ``WINE'' is clearly one of the largest and most 
effective tools for leveling the playing field between Windows and 
Linux.
    I sincerely hope that the Court rejects the Proposed Final 
Judgment and instructs the Justice Department to come up with a new 
one which addresses the many problems which I'm sure have been 
brought to your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Kamens
    Curl Corporation



MTC-00024455

From: Ernie DeVries
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not a lawyer. I cannot speak to the legal points of the 
proposed settlement of DOJ's anti-trust action against Microsoft. 
Although I am a computer professional, in many ways I am just a 
consumer who is directly affected by the actions of Microsoft 
because I use personal computers. I can speak to the impact of a 
settlement on consumers.
    The largest personal impact of Microsoft's conduct has been the 
lack of choice by consumers. Microsoft has a long history of actions 
such as pre-announcements, feature add-ons and exclusive agreements 
which have been done not to improve the use of MS products, but 
simply as preemptive strikes to keep competitors from continued 
development on products. For me, this kind of behavior is the core 
issue in MS using it's existing monopoly to enter new markets.
    Although it was not specifically addressed in the trial, events 
at Gateway computer illustrate this problem. There was a time when 
Gateway included ``Office'' software with each new 
computer at no additional charge. Gateway customers were given the 
choice between Microsoft Office and WordPerfect Office, with no push 
or coercion toward either product. This practice did not last long, 
but was replaced by Gateway offering no choice--only MS Office. 
Anyone who believes that Gateway took this action on its own, 
without behind-the-scenes ``encouragement'' from MS, is a 
fool.
    The connection to this case is that even if MS never actually 
leaned on Gateway to exclude competing products, MS was able to 
create an environment wherein vendors had to live with the constant 
threat that they would be cut off by MS or have prices increased by 
MS so that the manufacturer could not compete. This environment lead 
directly to reduced choice for consumers with resulting higher 
prices and lower productivity because the ``better 
mousetrap'' never had a chance in the marketplace.
    Certainly there were errors in judgment by the original trial 
judge regarding the sharing of his thoughts about the trial, but as 
I watched the trial unfold I was repeatedly struck with the thought 
that Judge Jackson seemed to be the only one involved in the case 
who was making any sense at all. If the actual judgment of Judge 
Jackson cannot be implemented, then certainly his intent needs to be 
preserved.
    To accomplish this, I see the following as being critical pieces 
of the conclusion of this case:
    (1) Consumer choice will only be restored when MS is forced to 
open its files to share information on API calls and file formats so 
that all competitors have the same advantage as the internal 
developers at Microsoft. This is not sharing source code, but 
interfaces.
    (2) Exclusive contracts must be prohibited between MS and its 
OEM customers as well as with VARs (Value Added Resellers).
    (3) MS must be prohibited from giving away products. I know this 
is very difficult to define, but we must never again have a 
situation like Internet Explorer which was created and given away 
for the exclusive purpose of undercutting a competitor that did not 
have the same financial resources as MS. Consumers are not benefited 
by ``free'' products when the result is the lack of real 
alternatives in the marketplace.
    (4) Financial penalties. The financial penalties from 
Microsoft's past behavior must be so severe that MS will never again 
consider repeating its behavior.
    The bottom line is that we need a sentence that restores choice 
and innovation to the marketplace. MS must become one player among 
equals instead of being the only player that counts.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Ernie DeVries
    Flagstaff, AZ



MTC-00024456

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    Please accept the settlement with Microsoft.
    Bringing this matter to a conclusion will help the economy and 
boost confidence in the stock market.
    Thank you,
    Kevin Greenhaw



MTC-00024457

From: Tony H
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    All I can say its a BIG JOKE.
    Users Lose
    Microsoft Wins
    Thank You
    Tony Hromadka



MTC-00024458

From: Paul Dupuy, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:21pm
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,
    Paul Dupuy
    Software Engineer
    Vancouver, WA



MTC-00024459

From: Lori Dupuy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:22pm
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 27486]]

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,
    Lori Dupuy
    Mother
    Vancouver, WA



MTC-00024461

From: Scott Tietjen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Commentary due to the Tunney Act requirements:
    I am a Consultant Computer Programmer/Analyst and Data Security 
Analyst. I have reviewed the proposed settlement with Microsoft, and 
have read many commentaries on it, and I am shocked that our 
government and nine states have given in to Microsoft in such an 
outrageous way. There is no possible chance that Microsoft will 
change its behavior in any noticeable way with the application of 
this settlement--they will in fact be left alone to do what 
they want, to whomever they want, any time they want, with no 
controls whatsoever, despite this ``review committee'' 
will do or say. This settlement does nothing to stem Microsoft's 
anti-competitive behavior--in fact, it provides so many large 
loopholes that you can drive a truck through them (and, Microsoft 
will drive many trucks through those loopholes). I will not go into 
any significant detail--my other collegues that have provided 
commentary that more than do justice to the topic.
    In closing, I support the other nine states and their attorneys-
general who disagree with the proposed settlement. Their proposals 
come a lot closer to actually restoring almost reasonable 
competition to the marketplace, although they are not perfect 
requirements either. I am of the camp that believes that Microsoft 
properly needs to be broken up into several smaller companies, that 
the industry and economy will not be harmed by such a breakup (just 
like AT&T, the industry will thrive after such a breakup), and 
that anyone that claims that harm will result from such a breakup is 
merely parroting Microsoft spin doctors.
    --Scott Tietjen, West Haven, Connecticut



MTC-00024462

From: Christopher Fitch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I would like to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement. In the Antitrust trial, a number of findings 
were made. Further, upon appeal a number of facts were affirmed 
including 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. ``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.'' (from Dan Kegel: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html )
    Since Microsoft illegally maintained its monopoly, Microsoft 
enjoys a strengthened Barrier of Entry and little or no competition 
in the Intel-compatible operating system market. As such, the Final 
Judgement must remedy the situation by significantly reducing the 
Application Barrier of Entry and by greatly increasing competition 
in the market. The proposed settlement does not remedy either 
situation, and it actually strengthens their current monopoly and 
allows for new monopolies to be created. There are a number of areas 
that are flawed in the Proposed Settlement. A list of them is 
located here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Some other problems:
    * There is no provision for preventing an extension of 
Microsoft's monopoly into other areas. Any Microsoft products must 
be provided as additional-cost options with a new computer which 
allows for a user to not be forced into buying them if they do not 
wish to.
    * There is no provision for opening Microsoft's current and 
future file formats so that any competitors'' applications can 
properly read/write/modify documents created using Microsoft 
applications.
    * There is no provision for requiring Microsoft to publish, in 
entirety, the specifications for any networking protocols used in 
Microsoft's products.
    One other critical flaw is the lack of any enforcement in the 
settlement and the lack of any serious punishment if Microsoft 
violates the terms of the settlement. In the Proposed Settlement, 
only investigative issues are covered. There are no mechanisms for 
punishing Microsoft if they violate any terms. This is akin to a 
convicted criminal (which Microsoft is) being told at a sentencing 
hearing that his only punishment is to agree to not commit the crime 
again, and if the criminal does commit the same crime, he will just 
be ``watched'' some more. Without any mechanism for 
punishment, Microsoft can easily violate the settlement terms with 
no fear of costs or consequences. The current Antitrust proceedings 
resulted from Microsoft's violation of a Consent Decree from 1995, 
and indicate a willingness by Microsoft to break the law to maintain 
their market share.
    For years, it has been stated that computing is critical to the 
United States'' economic future, and as such, to the entire 
world. If we allow Microsoft to continue to impede competition and 
destroy innovation by accepting the Proposed Settlement, the 
country's future and perhaps the whole world's future are in danger 
of suffering significant damage from which it may take years to 
recover. Competition is vital to any important market and provides 
benefits to customers and to the economy. A great example of 
competition's benefits is in the area of Intel-compatible processors 
or CPUs. Intel and AMD are the two main competitors in this area, 
and their competition has had a large positive effect. Their 
products are better, cheaper, and easily available.
    Finally, Microsoft has eliminated customers'' choices by 
restricting changes to applications bundled with their operating 
system and by forcing computer manufacturers to install their 
operating system through the use of restrictive contracts. One of 
the cornerstones of our country is freedom of choice. Microsoft has 
violated that right and must be prevented from violating freedom of 
choice any further.
    In summary, Microsoft has been found guilty of violating the 
law. These violations and their damage to the market must be 
remedied, and future damage must be prevented. The Proposed 
Settlement does neither and MUST be rejected since it does not serve 
the public interest.
    Thanks for your time,
    Christopher Fitch
    Senior Software Engineer
    Memphis, TN



MTC-00024463

From: Marc Grubb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    I would like to call to your attention what I feel are glaring 
omissions in the PFJ, which allow Microsoft to continue to dominate 
and monopolize in almost every market, allow exclusionary practices 
to continue, and fail to adequately punish Microsoft for its anti-
competitive behavior. As a Macintosh user, I feel the effects 
Microsoft's strangle hold on the consumer software market every day. 
By using the Macintosh Operating System, I can avoid using Windows, 
though it is a constant struggle to avoid having to use Microsoft's 
Explorer for Web Browsing or Word and

[[Page 27487]]

Excel for Word Processing and Spreadsheets, which are just a few 
examples. Through their domination, they have virtually eliminated 
competition for consumer and small business software applications 
even within the Mac OS.
    The PFJ is so vague that it only STRENGTHENS Microsoft's 
barriers to entry and WEAKENS competition. This hurts consumers and 
limits innovation and is contrary to the free market principles of 
our nation's economy. Please strengthen the PFJ to satisfy the Court 
of Appeal's mandate 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 PFJ, in its current form, does none of these things, thereby 
violating the public trust.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Marc Grubb
    Roslindale, MA



MTC-00024464

From: Mark Stevenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement is a poor one because the 
``remedies'' imposed are so unrestrictive and narrowly-
defined as to let Microsoft continue with anitcompetitive actions 
with almost no change in corporate behavior. There is no sting, and 
there is no remedy in the proposed settlement.
    Mark Stevenson
    Fishers, IN
    Personal computer consumer/enthusiast



MTC-00024465

From: William Buchanan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:25pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft-DOJ settlement
    I am outraged at the proposed ``settlement'' of this 
conflict. It makes as much sense to me as the first court conclusion 
in the OJ Simpson case. Gates has simply conned his way out of being 
found clearly guilty by the very expensive but well executed 
investigation of Microsoft's actions by the Clinton DOJ. 
Gates'' entire career is based on lying, cheating, stealing and 
bullying his way around in the consumer community. He has no 
scruples, other than continually doing anything he can to get the 
public's money in exchange for their purchases of Microsoft's so-
called ``innovative'' products. These sub par products 
only appear to be innovative because he has used his wealth and 
maligned cunning to squash any legitimate competitors. Jackson's 
characterization of him as a ``little Napoleon'' is right 
on. And now for the corrupt tie between G.W. Bush and W. Gates 
(following White House meetings between the two) to surface as a 
``just settlement'' thrown quickly before a war-distracted 
US public and its Congress, is really rubbing salt into a big wound.
    Hooray for the valor of the states who are holding out and 
continuing to gun for a real ``just settlement'', in this 
case. The only reason the other states that originally were involved 
had to drop out is that the Gates machine is so well endowed, 
financially and legally, it is able to intimidate even a relatively 
large collective of public/legal representatives in its obsessive 
path of destruction. I'm glad to be a citizen of California, and 
able to watch my attorney general, Bill Locklyer, lead the charge 
against prematurely settling with Microsoft.
    I would hope that the Federal DOJ could follow the same path in 
this case, but think that the eagerness of the current 
administration to satisfy Gates'' dreams of walking away 
unscathed from this situation are so far handing him his wishes, 
just as though it was a ``pardon''. If there is still such 
a value as ``justice'' in our US, then let it reign 
supreme. Require Microsoft to be held accountable for what it has 
already been found guilty of, and make it pay the full and 
responsible cost of having deliberately committed its heinous 
actions. And see to it that the Bush administration be held just as 
responsible and accountable for exercising its Constitutional 
requirement to uphold justice in this case. Anything less only 
brings to light that the Bush administration and Microsoft are 
colluding to dupe the taxpayer into believing that both are worthy 
of honor, a conclusion that is just not acceptable and well should 
not be.
    CC:abraham fred,Jacobsen Dianne,Lips Rolf,Marasco Joe



MTC-00024466

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Kim Pickens
    1901 W Imhoff Rd
    Norman, OK 73072



MTC-00024467

From: Chris Mayhall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--AOL Private Suit
    The last thing our country and economy needs right now is yet 
another frivolous lawsuit that will surely do further damage to 
nearly everyone's retirement portfolio (particularly in light of 
recent events with Enron Corporation). Please dismiss the recent 
lawsuit file by AOL Time Warner against Microsoft Corporation, and 
ask that AOL Time Warner compete with technology instead of 
litigation.
    Three important points should be noted regarding AOL Time 
Warner:
    1. AOL purchased Netscape for $10 billion dollars in the midst 
of the DoJ trial, even after hearing concrete evidence that IE's 
success in the market was based on merit, not market share.
    2. Microsoft has tried to with AOL in a variety of areas, 
including improvement of instant messaging interoperability and 
getting fair and open access to AOL's dominant cable assets.
    3. AOL has repeatedly rebuffed Microsoft's efforts, to the 
detriment of consumers and the technology industry, and has turned 
to politics and litigation instead.
    As a small-business entrepreneur, I view the relationship 
between Microsoft's Internet Browser (IE) and AOL's browser 
(Netscape Navigator) as a straight-forward, very tough, competition 
between two companies operating in a free-market arena. Nothing 
more.
    AOL Time Warner needs to step up to the plate, quit whining (or 
rather, attempting to derail Microsoft and as a side-effect derail 
our economy via litigation), and come out with a superior browser 
and method for interacting with the internet. AOL Time Warner 
certainly has the financial assets to compete, and no doubt has 
technology and personnel to compete, AND has massive leverage in the 
form of its cable rights and media content (via Time Warner assets).
    Do I file a lawsuit when my competition across town comes up 
with a better service? Hell no, I work longer hours, invest in newer 
technology, and get my &%$ in gear or else I'm out of a job and 
the vision that is my company goes down the tubes.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Mayhall
    Applied Digital Photography, LLC



MTC-00024468

From: Michele Midofer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. The conclusions reached in the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment is NOT in the public interest.
    It encourages Microsoft's monopolitic ways to continue, and this 
is wrong.
    Sincerely,
    Michele Midofer



MTC-00024469

From: Ev Plant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
July 22, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

[[Page 27488]]

    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It is time to stop fiddling with the Microsoft antitrust 
lawsuit, while the American technology industry burns. I strongly 
support your leadership in directing your Department of Justice to 
settle this embarrassment. After three years of lawyering and three 
months of negotiations, I am glad that the parties, including my 
home state of Illinois, have agreed to what agreed to what may be 
the least flawed settlement possible.
    Microsoft agreed to give up a great deal in the settlement. Were 
I in charge of Microsoft, I fantasize that I would have led out to 
maintain the principles of American free enterprise. However, I 
respect what Microsoft went through, and Microsoft's choice. Under 
the settlement, Microsoft sets a precedent as the first company to 
disclose to its competitors the code for its internal interfaces of 
an operating system, its popular Windows programs. Further, 
Microsoft will release its server interoperability protocols, and on 
a non-discriminatory basis license its copyrights and patents to 
other companies who might otherwise infringe. Microsoft will modify 
Windows XP and later to make it easy for others, including 
competitors, to add their own programs or remove Microsoft's 
programs integral to Windows. A three-person oversight committee 
will monitor compliance and field complaints from any party. I think 
at all of this is too much, but support Microsoft's decision to 
accept the settlement.
    America has always been at the forefront of computer software 
development. Let's maintain America's leadership position. Your 
leadership was essential to reaching the settlement. Now your 
leadership can help convince the Federal Judge to accept the 
settlement. I appreciate your strong leadership.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Everett Plant
    20 Grand Circle
    Danville, IL 61832
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00024470

From: Al Yee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ever school child in America has been taught about fairness and 
justice and yet the American political system continues allow 
Microsoft to crush its rival. The legal system has proven Microsoft 
guilty so enforce the law and for once prove that the justice system 
is above politics.



MTC-00024471

From: Josh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just want to say that I disagree with the proposed settlement. 
I don't think I need to go into great detail as to why I disagree 
with it, I'm sure many others have already. My feeling is basically 
this: This settlement is equivalent to sentencing a serial killer to 
100 hours of community service instead of the life sentence (or 
worse) that they deserve.
    Joshua Fluty
    Independent Programmer
    Greenville, SC



MTC-00024472

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:26pm
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,
    Donald Grempler
    611 West drive
    Glen Burnie, MD 21061-2034



MTC-00024473

From: Shilpa Tilwalli
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 12:33pm
    To Whom It May Concern:
    In accordance with the Tunney Act I am submitting my opinions on 
the proposed government settlement with Microsoft in regards to the 
pending anti-trust case.
    I am firmly opposed to the current proposed settlement term in 
the Microsoft case. The terms do no fully redress the actions 
committed by Microsoft in the past, nor their ability to commit 
similar or anti-competitive actions in the future.
    Many of the provisions in the current settlement will not 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. In view of Microsoft 
history of anti-comptetitive practices correcting this is vitally 
important.
    A few issues that have been brought to my attention are:
    1) The settlement does not take into account Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems. Microsoft increases the Applications 
Barrier to Entry by using restrictive license terms and intentional 
incompatibilities. Yet the settlement fails to prohibit this, and 
even contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    2) The settlement Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License 
Terms currently used by Microsoft. Microsoft currently uses 
restrictive licensing terms to keep Open Source applications from 
running on Windows.
    3) The settlement Fails to Prohibit Intentional 
Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft. Microsoft has in 
the past inserted intentional incompatibilities in its applications 
to keep them from running on competing operating systems.
    4) The settlement Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices 
Towards OEMs. The current settlement allows Microsoft to retaliate 
against any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a competing 
Operating System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Please refer to http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html for 
other issues that must be addressed for the settlement to be fair 
and equitable to all interested parties.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. I implore you to look into these and the other 
issues before before pursuing closure on this matter.
    Thank you.
    Shilpa Tilwalli



MTC-00024474

From: dave robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It will 
not prevent Microsoft from breaking antitrust laws in the future, or 
punish them for the illegal damage they have already done to 
companies in my area.
    Thankyou very much for your consideration,
    David Robinson



MTC-00024475

From: David Sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is inadequate as it stands. There are a 
number of glaring flaws--for instance, the PFJ prohibits 
certain behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs but allows Microsoft to 
retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a 
competing Operating System but no Microsoft operating system. But 
this means that the proposed remedy is little remedy at all for it 
allows Microsoft to continue to dominate the Intel based OEM market 
with abandon.
    Please reconsider the proposed settlement.
    David Sullivan
    Associate Professor, MSCD



MTC-00024476

From: Christal Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the proposed settlement is bad idea !!!!



MTC-00024477

From: Caroline Lambert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am sending this email because I am concerned that the Proposed 
Final Judgement does not go anywhere near far enough to stop 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. There are too many loopholes 
which others have

[[Page 27489]]

adequately described. Microsoft's only concern at the end of the day 
is how many dollars they can suck out of their customers. If the 
remedies are not made more severe, there will be no limit to the 
damage they will cause to consumers and the high tech industry in 
the future.
    Caroline Lambert
    IT Infrastructure Manager
    Agilent Labs



MTC-00024478

From: Mike Zyphur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    My name is:
    Mike Zyphur
    New Orleans, LA 70118
    I am a Ph.D. student in Industrial and Organizational Psychology 
at Tulane University, a US citizen, and I do not agree with the 
proposed ruling. This settlement is a bad idea. If this settlement 
is the outcome of what was a very telling antitrust trial and fact-
finding process by the DOJ then I am going to lose even more faith 
in the ability of the DOJ to be an island in a sea of corporate-
sponsored governmental policy-making than has already been erroded 
by past DOJ actions. If the currently proposed ruling is allowed to 
stand, Microsoft will continue its subtle and publicly covert 
operation of stifling competition and innovation, and (for those who 
know a fair amount about technology and programming) blatantly 
produce some of the worst products on the market with virtually no 
competition that is adequately Windows compatable. Please, please, 
please, reconsider your proposed decision and be true to the name of 
your organization. The name that is, in this country, supposed to 
mean something: The Department of Justice. For how can we, as a 
nation, attempt to bring and preach justice throughout the world (as 
we are currently attempting to do) if we cannot even remain unbiased 
and just in our homeland?
    Thank you for your time,
    Mike Zyphur
    The immature man desires to die for a cause. The mature man 
desires to live for a cause, humbly.
    J.D. Salinger



MTC-00024479

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Betty Norman
    326 N. Evans
    Pierre, SD 57501



MTC-00024480

From: Anne Dirkse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my sincere dismay at the injustice of 
the proposed settlement terms of DOJ vs. Microsoft. Such a 
settlement does nothing to remedy the stifiling impact that 
Microsoft has had on the industry. Quite the opposite, in fact It 
opens up a new audience for Microsoft in a market that they would 
very much like to permeate. Tecnology can and will do great things 
for this country, but the essence of its sucess should be the same 
essence that made this country great: freedom. By allowing Microsoft 
to continue their non-competetive practices you all but ensure that 
they will not only have increasing control over the operating system 
market but also that they will continue their attempts to obfuscate 
and disable other viable technologies, protocols and revolutionary 
ideas.
    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.
    Sincerely,
    Anne L. Dirkse
    [email protected]



MTC-00024481

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Settlement does not go nearly far enough in punishing 
Microsoft for it's business practices. The Justice Dept, for 
political reasons only, completly caved on the settlement.
    Bryce Barrie



MTC-00024482

From: Helen Traaen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please settle with Microsoft and quit spending tax payers money 
on this long drawn out process, thank,,,,,
    Helen Traaen



MTC-00024483

From: (q)Charles Hethcoat(q) (060)Charles Hethcoat
To:RFC-822=verify@*fxsp0;-
[email protected]@i...
Date: 1/25/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Name: Charles L. Hethcoat III
    City: Houston
    State: Texas
    Title: Concerned citizen; Senior Engineer/Stress Analysis
    Organization: Currently unemployed
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have signed Dan Kegel's Open Letter to the DOJ because I fully 
agree with it. Microsoft is being rewarded, not punished. Now, as a 
part of this goofy ``settlement,'' the Pied Piper of 
Redmond is geing given the next generation of school children to do 
with as he wishes.
    I say it's spinach and I say to Hell with it.
    Cheers.
    Charles Hethcoat



MTC-00024484

From: Matthew Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the current Microsoft settlement is not a good idea. 
Please review the settlement and make sure it meets requirements and 
standards of existing laws and regulations. When a corporation such 
as microsoft defies federal anti-trust laws and calls it aggressive 
business practices, something must be done about it. now is the time 
to hold microsoft accountable for their actions and see that the 
company does not continue in its illegal courses of action.
    Thank you for your time
    Matt Jones



MTC-00024485

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft is a monopoly.
    Microsoft has been found guilty of monopolistic practices, but 
my government is set to reward its behavior.
    The DOJ/Microsoft settlement is a disproportionately weak 
response to the harmful, predatory practices of that business 
entity. Most of the time I believe it is not in our best interests 
for the government to micromanage free market activities. But in 
this case, the actions of Microsoft have proven to be harmful to the 
marketplace community, and by extension the larger economy.
    If my government fails to protect the interests of its citizens 
on such a hugely influential matter, that failure will corrode the 
trust its citizens place in it. Furthermore,

[[Page 27490]]

letting the monopolist off so lightly essentially codifies into law 
its monopolistic practices, and paves the way for further and more 
egregious activities.
    It is my view that a structural response, such as breaking the 
company into operating system and application entities is not an 
unfair nor an uncalled for response. I believe Microsoft has proven 
in the past it is well capable of circumventing the rules other 
business entities follow in its predatory campaign to stamp out 
competition. Thus, I believe more conservative behavioral remedies 
will, in the end, prove no barrier to further illegal and egregious 
behaviors on the part of this entity.
    Dennis Daupert



MTC-00024486

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    F N Ingram
    POB 12446
    Odessa, TX 79768



MTC-00024487

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:36pm
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,
    Herbert Rowland
    7565 Keating Dr.
    Indianapolis, IN 46260-3300



MTC-00024488

From: Christopher Plummer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I would like to submit the following as a Tunney Act comment 
regarding my opposition to the proposed final judgement against 
Microsoft:
    As an information technologies professional for twenty years I 
have observed the rise of Microsoft and noted with concern many of 
its anti-competitive and monopolistic practices, only some of which 
have been addressed by the DOJ case.
    In general I am convinced that the remedy proposed will not 
prevent Microsoft from unfairly maintaining its monopoly, not stop 
it from thwarting competition and innovation in the computer and 
every other industry it touches, and will not in the end prevent 
Microsoft from harming consumers by hindering their choices in the 
marketplace. The PFJ 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, Fails 
to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs, and as currently 
written appears to lack an effective enforcement mechanism.
    Please go back to the drawing board and come up with a remedy 
that will actually protect and benefit consumers!
    Thank you,
    Christopher Plummer
    Lotus Notes Administrator
    Independent Contractor
    Flemington, NJ USA



MTC-00024489

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:36pm
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,
    Bill Steinhour
    220 Malibu Street
    Castle Rock, CO 80104



MTC-00024490

From: Tazanator
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    sir;
    I believe that the original proposal of splitting up microsoft 
into several smaller independant companies is truely what is needed 
in the intrest of fair play. The court records show they have run a 
monopoly and violated anti-trust laws and have continued to bully 
the computer market even during the trial. To belive they won't 
continue to do the practices that made them the largest in the 
business is a travisty to justice. In fact to belive they will 
change and be open to compition is to belive that the windows XP 
isn't them tring to fix the lemons in Windows 95. If they built cars 
you know they would have been pushed out of business by now for 
inferior support and a product that is very unstable. They have kept 
the markets closed thru their legal department and arm wrangling to 
the point that there has never been a chance for the american people 
to stand up and voice what we belive is a better product let alone a 
company to try to make a better product available to the people.
    Please in the interest of the american idea of free competiton 
bust the microsoft monopoly into several smaller corporations. It 
would give the computers back to the people that created them 
allowing the programs to improve instead of repair what microsoft 
has crippled. --



MTC-00024491

From: Sam Mills
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do not settle with microsoft. People who abuse the system must 
be held accountable.
    Sam Mills



MTC-00024492

From: Cesar Rebellon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:41pm
Subject: comments
    Just a quick comment on Microsoft-- My feeling, for 
whatever it may be worth, is that Microsoft, intentionally or not, 
has so much market share that they inhibit the very competition that 
our country prides itself in promoting. Just my two cents worth...
    Cesar J. Rebellon, M.A.
    Applied Research Services



MTC-00024493

From: IVAN BOTVIN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen, I understand that you are now in the process of 
reviewing the governments settlement with Microsoft. It is my 
opinion that the settlement is fair and should not be touched. 
Microsoft is a very important player in the growth of the computer 
industry. It has been the leader in developing the technology

[[Page 27491]]

that has brought the computer into the homes of a large percentage 
of our people. It also is an important source of foreign sales which 
helps us in our balance of payments problem. It has helped make 
American business more competitive with it's applications for them. 
In short, we need Microsoft and we need it with the ability to keep 
innovating. I support the settlement as it now stands.
    Sincerely,
    Ivan J. Botvin
    5300 E. Weaver Dr
    Centennial, CO



MTC-00024494

From: Andy Rosen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:40pm
Subject: Proposed settlement--unacceptable
    To whom it may concern,
    I have worked in the computer industry as a software engineer 
and systems administrator for over 15 years. I am writing to express 
my concerns about the proposed settlement by the Dept. of Justice 
and Microsoft. There are two primary goals in any anti-trust remedy: 
gains achieved through illegal means should be recovered and 
competition should be restored to the relevant market.
    It is my strong belief that, if approved, the settlement would 
not penalize Microsoft in any way, nor would it restore competition 
to the relevant market. In fact, it would further entrench 
Microsoft's monopoly position and allow them, legally, to extend 
that position to new markets. The proposed settlement includes no 
penalties for Microsoft. They would simply be allowed to keep the 
countless billions of dollars they have acquired as a result of 
their illegal practices.
    While the relevant market was defined as Personal Computer 
Operating Systems, the proposed settlement does nothing to restore 
competition to that market. Instead, it tries to ensure that third 
parties will have continued access to the information necessary to 
write application software for future Windows platforms.
    It was shown in the trial that there is a significant 
``applications'' barrier to entry. By helping companies 
write *more* applications for Windows we would be helping Microsoft 
to strengthen their position. Additionally, there are loopholes that 
even a casual observer can recognize. For example, Microsoft would 
be allowed to determine who will have access to new and existing 
system interfaces. In other words, they would be allowed to pick and 
choose who their competition will be in any application software 
market.
    Microsoft would also be allowed to block all access to major 
portions of their interfaces by claiming they are part of system 
security, or virus protection, or content management, etc. As they 
have shown in the past, Microsoft is quite capable, and willing, to 
tie unrelated products together not for technical reasons, but to 
eliminate competition. Instead we should be taking steps to bring 
existing applications to platforms that attempt to compete directly 
with Windows, such as OS/2, Linux, BeOS, FreeBSD and UnixWare.
    Microsoft had their year in court and were found guilty. The 
trial is over. The appeals process is over. Now is not the time for 
settlements. Now is not the time for judgment. Now is the time for 
remedy.
    Andy Rosen  Senior Software Architect 
and Systems Administrator
    http://www.ajr.cx/pubring.asc



MTC-00024495

From: Carl Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:41pm
Subject: The Microsoft Case
    Hi there,
    While I may not be a US citizen, I'm in Canada by the way. 
Microsoft has abused its monopoly and it should have a remedy put at 
it. And here's my proposed remedy for it.
    1. Split it up into 3 companies. One for operating system 
products. One for Internet software. And the third for any other 
kind of software.
    2. Make it open up the API for all of its operating systems, and 
future operating systems. So that programmers have the same chance 
to make great products as it does itself.
    3. Any proprietary feature in its Browser that it has, it must 
open up so that competitors that make other internet browsers can 
have that same set of features. In other words, it has to submit it 
to W3C first, then if its approved, it can then add it to its 
browser. So then its competitors can have the same features as well.
    4. When it gives out licenses to OEM's, it cannot limit the OEM 
to just having its operating system on the computer. This way if the 
OEM wants to put 2 operating systems on the computer to give its 
customer's a choice of which operating system to use, or to explore 
another operating system like linux, while still using windows.
    5. Give the OEM's a choice of which browser to ship with the 
operating system. So if an OEM wants to ship Netscape instead of 
Internet Explorer, it can. And if the consumer wants to use Internet 
Explorer, then it can download it from Microsoft. Or at the very 
least, a stripped down browser, with basic download capabilities and 
html reading so that the consumer can choose which browser to use.
    6. Open up the samba sharing system, so that competitors can 
have full access on how to implement it in their operating systems. 
Including how to access it from their operating system.
    7. Microsoft cannot limit OEM's as to which software to include 
and not to include, for example Microsoft cannot give them a lower 
price or some other deal by only including Microsoft Office and not 
a competitors Office Suite.
    Well there's my ideas on the type of remedy Microsoft should be 
given. Thanks for listening.
    Regards,
    Carl Stewart



MTC-00024496

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Charles Middlebrooks
    5005 Casa Grande Dr.
    Dickinoson, TX 77539



MTC-00024497

From: Ed Boutros
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a user of Apple computer products it should be noted 
Microsoft has not produced a version of their database called Access 
for the Macintosh. To many people this may seem insignificant, but 
what it does is eliminate the full integration of apple computers in 
business environments. The other point is that in the windows 
version of Outlook, the mail client, Microsoft created a networked 
calendar system, which again was not provided for the Macintosh mail 
client called Entourage. People may say so what, what I say these 
omissions were done on purpose to maintain Apple's niche status in 
the computer industry, since when an Apple computer is sold 
Microsoft generates no money from the transaction, but may my 
benefit from the purchase of their limited office suite. In order to 
level the playing field, the company needs to be split in 3 ways, 
one for operating systems, one for add on software and another for 
services like web tv and .net. The company has vast influence and 
must be monitored more closely, since now Microsoft now has the 
ability to shut off software that is purchased but not registered. 
There is always the possibility that at some point there could be 
massive computer shut downs if someone hacked into the activation 
system, or if a bug occurred in the activation system. This would 
represent a serious nation security risk to the national and world 
economy. The implications are serious.
    Ed Boutros
    24 Oak Brook Dr.
    Ithaca, NY 14850
    607-272-8902



MTC-00024498

From: Nall, Clinton (SCH)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
    I would like to register my disappointment with the current 
proposed final judgement in this case. The terms API and middleware 
are

[[Page 27492]]

so narrowly defined as to make the impact of this judgement minimal 
to Microsoft. If anything, it will be licensed to continue it's 
anti-competetive practices with impugnity. Any settlement that does 
not toss out Microsofts preload agreements and open their office 
suite formats and networking protocols to the light of day will be a 
travesty and will pave the way for many more years of the Microsoft 
non-benevolent monopoly.
    Go back and get it right!
    Clint Nall
    250 Fairfax Drive
    Alpharetta, GA 30004



MTC-00024499

From: Kevin Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    RECOMMENDATION: Reject the current proposal. Two facts lead to 
one conclusion my recommendation:
    FACT 1: Microsoft Corporation has proven itself to be a powerful 
and dangerous force because of the many ways it has leveraged its 
monopoly in Windows OS-dependent markets.
    FACT 2: The current potential settlement between Microsoft Corp. 
and the U.S. Department of Justice proposes to maintain that dynamic 
in the long term and impose short-term restraints based on 
regulatory oversight. CONCLUSION: The current proposed settlement 
between DOJ and Microsoft Corp. will fail to put an end to the 
illegal monopoly; fail to prevent a return to anticompetitive 
behavior; fail to deny the violator the benefits of its illegal 
actions; and fail to ensure competition going forward.
    RECOMMENDATION: Reject the current proposal.
    Thank you.
--Kevin Carter
--18 Longfellow Road
--Arlington, MA 02476



MTC-00024500

From: Travis Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement for the Microsoft Anti-Trust case is 
outrageous and should not be allowed!
    Travis Morgan
    CIO, Inc.
    Main Line: 913.962.6222
    New Direct Dial: 913.562.5645
    Turning Systems into Solutions
    www.cioinc.com 
    To: ``David Farber -bs(by way of 
Bernard A. Galler-bs)'' 

    The boot license doesn't actually say that you can't install a 
second OS.
    What is says is:
    1. You can't deliver a preinstalled machine in which Microsoft's 
code bootstraps someone else's OS. It is technical possible to

[[Page 27511]]

do this with NT/2000/XP/etc., because the NT bootloader is 
specifically designed to respect the preexistence of another OS and 
incorporate that into the boot sequence; any MCSE knows this. It's 
how NT systems allow you to preserve your previous boot option when 
you upgrade from DOS, OS/2, or Windows 9x/ME. However ...
    2. OEM's must use Microsoft's preinstallation tools to deploy 
the OS on the machine. Since those tools (usually) start by blasting 
away the contents of the disk and laying down Windows in a fresh 
partition, any preexisting OS would be destroyed in the process. 
Hence the trap: deploy the other OS first, and the OEM tools wipe it 
away;
    Deploy it after Windows, and you've used Microsoft's boot code 
to launch a different OS.
    It is trivially easy for end users and VAR's to set up dual-boot 
systems. But--as the article points out--this would 
require some interest on the part of customers for post-purchase 
installation, and there is none. http://www.theregister.co.uk/
content/archive/21410.html Between 1997, when the DoJ began taking 
the browser issue seriously, and when the final arguments were made 
late in 1999, Be was the only competitor whose business solely 
depended on providing competition to Microsoft on the consumer 
desktop. It's strange then that it should ignore such compelling 
evidence of anti-competitive behaviour. But the Antitrust staff 
aren't the only people who are reluctant to grasp the nettle. 
There's a widespread view in the Linux community that offering head- 
on competition to Windows on the desktop isn't how Linux will 
eventually win. The argument has some sound reasoning--it 
points to historical changes in the economics of the infrastructure, 
of the sort which saw midrange system replaced client/server 
PCs--but ducks the difficult question. If you are going to 
offer consumers an alternative to Windows, you're going to need 
distribution, and overwhelmingly the least troublesome and most 
convenient distribution point is a preloaded, pre-configured 
installation. That means access to the PC's boot sequence.
    At the LinuxWorldExpo panel discussion Jeremy Allison made few 
people comfortable with his point that unless you break the client 
monopoly, ``your alternative infrastructure is 
irrelevant,'' Very few OEMs can afford not to offer Windows, 
and while their freedom to offer alternatives is dictated to by the 
Beast, the alternatives will languish. http://www.theregister.co.uk/
content/4/22670.html One possible concession by Microsoft in the 
proposed AntiTrust settlement has come too late to save the company 
which pressed hardest for its inclusion: Be, Inc. Section C/4 of the 
remedy states that Microsoft may not forbid OEMs ``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''. OEM agreements preventing PC manufacturers 
from advertising the fact that an alternative was in fact, right in 
front of the user, pre-installed.
    In the case of Hitachi, the most significant OEM to offer BeOS 
preinstalled, the user had to manually install a boot manager to 
activate the BeOS partition, a process which involved creating their 
own floppy boot disk. The package could not include a boot floppy, 
and the Windows desktop had no icons enabling the automation of the 
process, or even giving any indication that an alternative existed 
on the PC. I can't grab everything from this article, but it's a 
good read: http://www.netaction.org/msoft/world/ I found this 
document via http://www.nyx.net/-lmulcahy/microsoft-bad- faith.html 
There a whole host of articles out there explaingin why the DOJ 
missed the boat and why Microsoft is going to get away scot free 
from this mess if some sever changes don't take place. I can't even 
begin to explain how bad this is going to be for the US and world 
economy if Microsoft isn't stopped.
    Thank you for yout time,
    Mitch Anderson



MTC-00024610

From: Tom Denman
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft
AVTEX
Thomas J. Denman
5775 West Old Shakopee Road
Suite 160
Bloomington, Mn 55437
(952) 831-3710
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter to simply state my support of the DOJ 
antitrust settlement involving Microsoft. The settlement reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice is fair and 
reasonable. The design of the settlement is to be beneficial to both 
the IT industry and the consumer alike, without unfairly attacking 
Microsoft.
    It is essential that the DOJ resolve this issue swiftly. An 
exorbitant amount of American tax dollars have been spent just so 
that Microsoft's competitors could attack their opposition. This 
country is based on free enterprise, and it seems that the 
settlement already goes against the grain of that idea. To continue 
litigation would just mean a slow suffocation of laissez-faire 
principles.
    As it is, Microsoft will have to give up software codes and 
intellectual property just to appease the DO J, yet some jealous and 
selfish special interests would prefer to move on, even though this 
is clearly not in the public interest. I strongly recommend that all 
action at the federal level be stopped.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Denman
    Executive Vice President



MTC-00024611

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Edward Luther
    94 Henry Clay Rd
    Newport News, VA 23601



MTC-00024612

From: Jonathan Leinwand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am concerned that the Microsoft settlement is letting 
Microsoft do something that would otherwise be illegal. By letting 
Microsoft provide free software to a market it has not yet 
dominated, the Justice Department is letting them do exactly what 
was done to Netscape. Free Windows software will tilt decisions 
towards Intel based computers running Windows, thus hurting 
competition in the education market place. The settlement needs to 
correct the behavior of the offender and not try to punish it or try 
to do a good deed. Giving out free software from Microsoft will not 
benefit educators, students or competition.
    Jonathan D. Leinwand, Esq.



MTC-00024613

From: Charles Borner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Pardon me if I seem naive about this. I simply do not understand 
why, if Microsoft is guilty of monopolistic practices, the 
government isn't stepping in and demanding real measures to 
dismantle this monopoly. Simply allowing Microsoft to give away 
product and old, refurbished computers isn't an effective remedy to 
this. It simply mirrors what happened when they began giving their 
Internet Explorer browser away for free.
    Because they have huge, effectively bottomless cash reserves, 
they can easily weather this settlement. Note: The settlement's cash 
value is roughly equal to Microsoft's MONTLY profit margin. It 
doesn't even begin to touch the billions Microsoft has socked away 
in the bank. Additionally, this damages the competition even 
further. Because now the government is effectively distributing 
software for Microsoft. For free. How are competitors supposed to 
compete with products being GIVEN away? The answer? They CAN'T. So 
the settlement isn't even a slap on the wrists for Microsoft. It has 
the effect of giving a government sanction to an illegal monopoly.

[[Page 27512]]

And more, government assistance in furthering that monopoly. The DOJ 
needs to stop trying to take the easy, feel-good way out of this, 
admittedly, painful situation. The DOJ needs to begin seeking hard, 
truly workable soloutions that REALLY penalize Microsoft for their 
illegal activities. Stop doing what's easy, and do what's RIGHT for 
a change.
    Charles Borner: [email protected]
    5550 Abbey Dr.
    Suite 4M
    Lisle, IL 60532



MTC-00024614

From: P T Withington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the Proposed Final Judgement in United States vs. 
Microsoft is insufficient to prevent Microsoft's continuance of 
anti-competetive practices to the detriment of computer users 
everywhere.
    P. T. Withington



MTC-00024615

From: David Halonen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose ``fining'' Microsoft by allowing them to have 
a free hand to donate MS software to schools--its tanamount to 
letting the fox in the henhouse! The fact that MS writes bad code, 
has a lousy user interface, and can't spell security to save Bill's 
fortune is beyond refute. And should not be a part of this 
settlement process. The fact is that MS has been found in violation 
of the law. The fact that they look at the law in disdain (ignoring 
prior rulings) calls out for a stiff punishment. I strongly 
encourage the gov't to punish MS to the fullest extent of the law. 
MS has clearly demonstrated time and time again, it only respects 
pure, unadulterated force. Hit them between the eyes! Its the only 
language they understand.
    Regards,
    David Halonen
    The Halonen Company
    10131 Fairlane, Suite 1215
    South Lyon, MI 48178
    (734) 449-2956
    (810) 923-0780 cell



MTC-00024616

From: Aaron Sherman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:55pm
Subject: Propose Microsoft settlement
    I'll keep this short, since I'm sure many who submit will not. 
The basic problem that Microsoft's business practices present to the 
rest of the industry is incompatibility of interfaces. The rest of 
the industry works very hard in standards organizations, 
documentation and in other ways to unify interfaces between software 
applications. Microsoft has done just the opposite. If the only 
change that results from this investigation is that Microsft is 
forced to publish details of their interfaces between, e.g., 
Internet Explorer and the Windows NT/2000/XP operating systems or 
between Office and the Win32 subsystem in full (not in general 
detail), then the industry would be able to compete on those 
platforms with the existing Microsoft products. Generally, this is 
not required of software companies because they do not straddle the 
operating system and application software markets. Where Microsoft 
does, they present a barrier to market for non-Microsoft 
applications simply by hiding the interfaces that their application 
products use.
    So, in short: publish interfaces well in advance of major 
revisions; maintain and support published interface implementations 
accross minor revisions; restrain Microsoft from applying for any 
patents which could prevent application software competitors from 
using said interfaces without paying royalties (note: this does not 
prevent Microsoft from acquiring patents, so long as they do not 
touch on application/platform interfaces). Interfaces should 
include: save file formats; application embedding protocols and 
controls; network protocols; extension languages; system libraries; 
operating system interfaces to application such as the browser.



MTC-00024617

From: Florence Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement agreement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
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,
    Florence Jones
    PO Box 281/451 Coul Ave.
    Buckley, WA 98321
    phone 360-829-9293



MTC-00024618

From: Phil Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:06pm
Subject: proposed settlement
    I support the Kansas AG and *do not* support the pending 
settlement.
    Phillip E. Parker
    Math. Dept. #33
    Wichita St. Univ.
    1845 N. Fairmount
    Wichita KS 67260-0033
    USA



MTC-00024619

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and I do not trust them with 
my data. I will vote with my conscience next time you guys are up 
for re-election or anything. ``What's good for General Motors 
is what's good for the country'' is and was WRONG.
    Haven't we learned enough about the Enron scandal, for instance? 
What are you guys thinking?
    Patrick McGraw
    Network Analyst
    Cejka & Company
    800.678.7858
    fax 314 863 1705



MTC-00024620

From: Getz, Steve (SM)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a bad idea. You need to break up the 
company--split off the operating system group from the rest. 
First they claim the browser is now part of the operating system. 
What keeps them from next saying Microsoft Office is now part of the 
operating system thus killing off the competition for word 
processing, spreadsheets, etc. Then they can add virus utilities to 
the operating system.
    Steve Getz
    Sarnia
    519-339-6412



MTC-00024621

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:55pm
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,
    MONROE STRAWN
    P. O. BOX 1001
    NORTH HIGHLANDS, CA 95660



MTC-00024623

From: Tim Van Riper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In order for this settlement to be fair, Microsoft should not be 
allowed to pay

[[Page 27513]]

damages by providing ``free'' software and/or hardware. 
The penalty must be monetary so schools can have the freedom to 
choose which platform they wish. By giving Microsoft the option of 
paying their penalty in kind, they not only settle the lawsuit, but 
grab and even larger marketshare by dumping their garbage software 
and tired old clone hardware off on unsuspecting students and 
teachers. That surely wouldn't be fair. Make Microsoft pay with REAL 
money.
    Timothy Van Riper
    Salem, Virginia



MTC-00024625

From: David Diplock
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    As a software engineer with over 10 years of experience 
developing for various platforms, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement (PFJ) under the Tunney Act. I agree with the 
problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html  ), and have asked to be included as a co-signer to 
his letter. In addition, I would like to summarize my personal views 
on the PFJ. The PFJ as currently written simply does not go far 
enough. There is no doubt, given Microsoft's past behavior, that it 
will attempt to circumvent and evade the terms of this agreement. 
The PFJ is so narrowly defined that it allows plenty of maneuvering 
room, especially considering that it will be applied in an industry 
as fluid as the software industry. Therefore, the PFJ will fail in 
its intended purpose--to prevent Microsoft from continuing its 
illegal and anticompetitive practices. Such failure would clearly 
not be in the public interest. Strengthening the settlement 
agreement, as proposed by Dan Kegel and by certain plaintiff states, 
is necessary for the remedy to be effective.
    Sincerely,
    David Diplock
    San Diego, California
    Software Engineer,
    Peregrine Systems



MTC-00024626

From: Michael Dragone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I'll keep my comments regarding the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement brief. The settlement in its current form essentially 
gives Microsoft the legal right to continue to do as they please. 
Furthermore, I've noticed that it seems to be relatively easy for 
Microsoft to circumvent any restrictions that are in place that they 
find to be a hindrance. Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly. 
This has been affirmed by a Court of Appeals. When AT&T was 
found to be a monopoly, they were broken up into Baby Bells. I'm not 
entirely certain that a breakup of Microsoft is the best solution (a 
slew of Baby Microsofts might not help the matter). Regardless, a 
harsher penatly must be imposed on this company. They literally have 
their collective hands in almost every facet of the Information 
Technology industry. Their use of disgusting business practices to 
enhance their own net worth causes nothing but disdain. If they are 
not stopped now, our entire IT infrastructure may one day be 
entirely Microsoft-driven. This is highly undesirable.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00024627

From: LUC,BIEN (HP-Cupertino,exl)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm
    Hi Mr Attorney General,
    Attached please find my opinion about the Microsoft litigation.
    Thanks,
    Bien Luc
    19420 Homestead Road
    Cupertino, CA 95014-0606
    January25,2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice,
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Attorney General:
    The economically damaging and unfair litigation against 
Microsoft must come to an end. The current settlement with Microsoft 
is in the best interests of California, the IT industry, and the 
economy. The settlement has placed a number of restrictions on 
Microsoft. For example, Microsoft has agreed to a ``Technical 
Committee'' that will monitor the company's compliance with the 
settlement. In addition, Microsoft agreed to design future versions 
of Windows to make it easy for consumers and computer makers to 
promote non-Microsoft products within Windows. Also, Microsoft has 
agreed not to retaliate against computer makers who ship software 
that competes with anything in its Windows operating system. These 
changes in Microsoft's behavior will result in more options for 
consumers as well as expanded competition in technology sector. More 
importantly, the settlement will end three years of unnecessary 
litigation and will let us move forward. I urge you to support it.
    Sincerely,
    Bien Luc



MTC-00024628

From: Ann Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement that has been offered, 
Microsoft giving approx. $1 billion in refurbished computers and 
software to schools to settle their lawsuits, is not only 
acceptable, but possibly illegal. Nor does it do anything to address 
the actual people and businesses that have been harmed by it's 
monopolic behavior. As John Kheit pointed out in his article in The 
Mac Observer, http://www.macobserver.com/, ``. . . Such 
predatory pricing and/or dumping tactics are normally illegal for a 
convicted monopolist. U.S. v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U.S. 495, 530 
(1948); Western Concrete Structures Co., Inc. v. Mitsui & Co. 
U.S.A.), Inc., 760 F.2d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 1985). Thus, it is 
currently illegal for Microsoft to give its software to the 
educational market for free or at a price below its costs because 
they have been found to be a monopoly. However, if the government 
agrees to Microsoft's proposed settlement with the states, then the 
government will at the very least be providing Microsoft with an 
exception to this rule, or at worst be a collaborator in illegal 
predatory pricing and dumping.''
    Microsoft should be punished for their anti-competitive 
behaviour, not rewarded with another market to monopolize. Also, any 
settlement should be focused towards the consumer and business 
community, not an irrelevant third party.
    E. Ann Lee
    2520 W 32nd Avd
    Denver, CO 80211
    303-455-6728



MTC-00024629

From: Chris McGrew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    It is my opinion that the proposed settlement is flawed. If 
Microsoft is guilty of monopolistic practices, as they have been 
found to be, then the proposed remedy of solution amounts to nothing 
more than a wrist slap. Microsoft will be little inconvenienced by 
these measures. I don't believe that breaking up Microsoft into 
different companies will help and that is not what I believe is 
fair. I do believe that MS is guilty of monopolistic practices, 
though I also believe that virtually any company that was able to 
maneuver themselves into the same position, would have employed 
almost identical tactics. These need to be curbed to allow industry 
to flourish.
    Microsoft is not a very innovator company, but they do update 
their products from customer input. They should not be allowed to 
kill off the smaller fish in the pond before these fish can become 
real competition by giving away a competing product for free. This 
practice doesn1t allow for fair competition.
    I am not sure how to fix this, but as I have stated earlier, the 
proposed settlement is nothing more than an ineffectual wrist slap.
    Chris McGrew
    2605 Oaks Ave
    Everett, WA 98201



MTC-00024630

From: Mike Everett-Lane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm
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 Microsoft 
settlement's inadequacy in improving the competitive environment in 
the software industry. Specifically, I would like to address the 
veto against open source programming.

[[Page 27514]]

    Open source programming is one of the most important revolutions 
in computer science. The Internet has enabled programmers from 
across the globe to create software collaboratively. Examples 
include Apache, GNU/Linux, Samba, etc. Under section J.2.c., 
Microsoft does not need to make ANY API available to groups that 
fail to meet ``reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business.'' This effectively gives Microsoft a veto over 
sharing any information with open source development projects, 
because Open Source projects are usually performed by volunteers, 
and therefore would not be considered authentic, or viable 
businesses. This will have a chilling effect on Open Source 
development--which in turn will reduce competition and halt the 
creation of new software. I cannot see how this would benefit 
consumers. The DOJ should revise its settlement, so that Microsoft 
cannot discriminate between for-profit and nonprofit groups in API 
disclosure.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Everett-Lane
    155 Seventh Avenue
    Brooklyn NY 11215



MTC-00024631

From: Ron Robertson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to comment that I don1t think the proposed settlement 
against Microsoft goes far enough. Nothing will change or be 
improved with your current proposal. I also think it1s wrong the way 
Microsoft breaks every standard and uses their market share to force 
everyone to use their products, particularly web browsers.
    Sincerely,
    Ron Robertson
    Fresno, CA



MTC-00024632

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    A few brief words stating how upset I am that you are letting 
Microsoft get away with anti-competitive practices with nothing more 
than a slap on the wrist. No fine could be enough, given the 
company's huge resources, and the whole idea to give schools their 
inferior software was just another obvious grab for market share. 
The only way to force MS to cooperate is to force them to open their 
operating system's code for all to see. Barring that, they must make 
all API files open source, so that other software companies might be 
able to write programs without the handicap of not having access to 
the internal system dynamics. If this is the best that the 
Department of Justice can do for the people of America, you may as 
well turn in your resignations.
    disrespectfully yours
    Steve Gattuso



MTC-00024633

From: Larry Melillo
To: Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/25/02 2:04pm
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Final Judgment
    TWIMC: Having read the Proposed Final Judgment, I believe 
harsher remedies are needed to prevent Microsoft from extending its 
monopoly in the future. In particular, Microsoft can not be allowed 
to self-regulate itself regarding the classification of new 
technologies as part of the Windows OS. Unless emerging companies 
are allowed to have a fair opportunity to develop and exploit 
breakthrough technologies, this proposed PFJ may allow future 
technology development to be delayed/ignored based on the whims of a 
single company's strategic intent. As technology will likely 
continue to be a major driver of the world's economy, this simply is 
not an acceptable alternative. At the very least, harsher regulatory 
controls should be implemented as part of the PFJ.
    Regards,
    Larry Melillo
    San Francisco, CA 94109



MTC-00024634

From: Spunk S. Spunk III
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to voice my opinion of the Microsoft Settlement and 
ask you to PLEASE continue the trial. The current settlement does 
nothing to Microsoft and worse yet, many of the 
``penalties'' actually strengthen Microsoft's monopoly. I 
think it allows them to continue bullying everyone who gets in their 
way as they always have done and, in fact, are continuing to do.
    Thank you,
    Brian Ray



MTC-00024635

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:02pm
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,
    andrew russell 2414 state street erie, PA 16503



MTC-00024636

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement reached between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft is a disgrace. Microsoft committed crimes and their 
punishment is no punishment at all! How can I be proud to be an 
American under these conditions? I take an active part in the 
education of my children. How do I explain to them that our country 
is based on law but that law does not apply to the 
wealthy--that our leaders are corrupt. You're destroying MY 
country and it's heritage. I'm ashamed of the whole lot of you. You 
disgust me.
    Ed Sawicki



MTC-00024637

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The constant litigations brought against Microsoft, simply 
because the company is a success, need to stop, and those already 
brought against Microsoft need to be dismissed, or at least, 
diminished. The original case brought against Microsoft was a case 
of ``sour grapes'', fueled by the liberal, and nonsensical 
idea that ``it's not fair'' that one company succeeds more 
than another. That same nonsensical idea extends to the individual, 
and therefor those indivduals who succeed are excoriated and 
punished by an increasingly dictatorial and intrusive government. 
The idea that the success of one individual helps the success of the 
next individual is no longer paramount in this country, because that 
is a capitalistic concept, and the country is becoming more and more 
socialistic. if not out-right communistic. However, Communism and 
Socialism are not what made this country great, nor will they keep 
it great.
    Richard L. Bushman
    165 Fruit Street
    Hopkinton, MA 01748
    508-435-4003



MTC-00024638

From: Rod Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement for Microsoft is a very bad idea and 
completely insufficient.



MTC-00024639

From: George Heller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. All it will allow for is 
big companies with deep pockets to tie up cases in court long enough 
that when the time comes for judgement the whole case seems 
irrelevant. At that point, they're unaffected because they've 
already accomplished what they've wanted to do: completely destroy 
all competition.



MTC-00024640

From: E. Tomchin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse

[[Page 27515]]

Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    After reviewing the Microsoft settlement documents it is my 
considered opinion that the proposed settlement not only does not 
prevent Microsoft from continuing in their heavy-handed and 
competition-strangling behavior, but it completely fails to address 
one of the worst offenses Microsoft has committed to date: to wit, 
the inauguration of Microsoft's new XP operating system with its 
Windows Product Activation (WPA) function. WPA appears fraudulent 
and monopolizing in that if a consumer fails to get Microsoft's 
permission to activate the operating system, which arguably is their 
right, it prevents that consumer from accessing their own personal 
and private files on that computer and permanently locks that 
consumer out of their own computer. This simple fact seems prima 
facie evidence that Microsoft has not only failed to adhere to the 
spirit of the settlement agreement, but has taken their heavy-handed 
monopoly to new heights.
    Further, Microsoft has announced that it soon will cease all 
support of earlier operating systems, including Windows 95, Windows 
98, Windows ME and Windows 2000. This appears to be a monopolizing 
move that is designed to force people to abandon any earlier 
operating system they may own and choose to keep and force them to 
purchase XP. This cessation of support for earlier Microsoft 
operating systems would not be that heavy-handed and monopolizing if 
Microsoft would allow the downloading of all necessary security 
patches and Service Packs so that a user may bring those operating 
systems up to secure functionality when the operating system needs 
reinstalling, which it quite frequently does due to numerous bugs 
and defects in the original product. Overall, it appears that 
Microsoft is being allowed to continue to control and interfere with 
a consumer's right to maintain an operating system they have 
purchased from Microsoft. The settlement does not address any of the 
issues I have put forth above.
    Thank you for the opportunity to address these issues.
    Sincerely,
    Edward A. Tomchin
    P. O. Box 10009
    Golden Valley, AZ 86413



MTC-00024641

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Betty Launius
    3827 Verner Dr.
    Peoria, IL 61615



MTC-00024642

From: Drew Dean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    (I'm not sure this got through the first time; it's the same 
text)
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse and Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    I wish to express my belief that the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment (RPFJ) in US v. Microsoft is not in the public interest, 
and respectfully urge the Court not to approve it. While the RPFJ is 
a substantial improvement over the original PFJ, it remains the case 
that the exclusions swallow the rule. The following three examples 
are illustrative, but by no means the only problematic areas in the 
RPFJ.
    (1) Section III.J.2. The exclusions in subpart (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,'' and (d) ``agrees to submit, at its own 
expense, any computer programs 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.'' 
serve to exclude the people that most need this documentation, 
namely, the Samba team (see http://www.samba.org). The Samba team 
has produced an open-source implementation of the Microsoft SMB/CIFS 
protocols for file and printer sharing. Being an open source 
project, their code is freely available, and they are not a 
business. A reasonable interpretation of subparagraphs (b) and (c) 
would make them ineligible to benefit from the remedies prescribed 
in Sections III.D and III.E. Furthermore, the cost of the testing 
required by Section II.J.2.(d) is likely to be prohibitive for 
individuals, and non-profit open source projects, further limiting 
competition. While the Samba team is the most immediately relevant 
example, these concerns also apply to the developers of the Linux 
operating system and the Apache Web server.
    All three of these programs are used by large numbers of people, 
and represent direct competition to Microsoft.
    (2) The definitions in Sections VI.J, VI.K, and VI.T 
(``Microsoft Middleware'', ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product'', and ``Trademarked'', respectively) appear 
to exclude Microsoft's Reader (see http://www.microsoft.com/reader). 
Microsoft Reader is the company's software for the display of 
electronic books. I reach the conclusion that Reader is not covered 
by the RPFJ as follows: (1) Sections VI.J.2, and VI.K.2.b.iii both 
require that the software ``is Trademarked.'' (2) Section 
VI.T defines ``Trademarked''. Sub-paragraph (iii) says 
``asserting the name as a trademark in the United States in a 
demand letter or lawsuit. Any product distributed under descriptive 
or generic terms or a name comprised of the Microsoft(r) or 
Windows(r) trademarks together with descriptive or generic terms 
shall not be Trademarked as that term is used in this Final 
Judgment.''
    (3) Microsoft Reader certainly is a name comprised of 
``Microsoft'' and a generic term, ``Reader,'' 
and by the plain meaning of Section VI.T.(iii) is not Trademarked. 
Hence, it is neither Microsoft Middleware nor a Microsoft Middleware 
Product, and appears to fall entirely outside the scope of the RPFJ. 
While the electronic book market is highly immature at present, many 
believe that it will come to dominate traditional, paper-based, 
publishing. The potential economies of digital storage and 
transmission are enormous. Publishing is a multi-billion dollar per 
year market and so the status of Microsoft Reader and competing 
products will be of great competitive significance. I believe that 
the public interest is best served by letting this potential market 
evolve in a free, competitive manner. Leaving Microsoft 
unconstrained is not consistent with this goal. I also note that 
Microsoft can avoid having any new product designated as a Microsoft 
Middleware Product under the RPFJ by the simple expedient of naming 
it so that it falls outside the definition of Trademarked (Section 
VI.T). (3) I quote Section VI.U in its entirety: ``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 definition has two problems. First, it is internally 
inconsistent. It begins by defining the code comprising a 
``Windows Operating System Product.'' It then follows that 
definition by contradicting itself, ``The software code that 
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by 
Microsoft in its sole discretion.'' Which definition is meant 
to prevail? Neither is clearly subordinate to the other. Second, in 
numerous places in the RPFJ, language of the form ``not 
inconsistent with this Final Judgment'', ``consistent with 
this Final Judgment'', or ``exercising any of

[[Page 27516]]

the options or alternatives provided for under this Final 
Judgment'' appears. It is, however, notably missing in Section 
VI.U. Given the numerous other appearances of this language, its 
lack here appears to be significant. While one might assume that any 
such determinations by Microsoft would have to be consistent with 
the RPFJ, plain reading of this definition does not require it. As 
there is no indication that this definition is subordinate to the 
rest of the RFPJ, this could be interpreted as undermining the 
intent of the RFPJ, particularly in regard to middleware products. I 
believe the settlement would be substantially strengthened by 
replacing the final sentence with: ``The software code that 
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by 
Microsoft in its sole discretion, consistent with this Final 
Judgment.''
    The above examples are illustrative of the flawed approach taken 
in the Revised Proposed Final Judgment. I believe that the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest, and 
respectfully urge the Court not to approve it.
    Sincerely,
    Drew Dean
    21070 White Fir Ct.
    Cupertino, CA 95014



MTC-00024643

From: Terryk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I am adamantly opposed to the proposed DOJ settlement. I have 
been in the computer business since the early ``60's. I watched 
for years as Microsoft ran business after business, out of business. 
Netscape, a fine browser, was one of the most visible, but by far, 
not the only one. Stac, a disk compression company is one that comes 
to mind, when Microsoft ``added'' a near copy of it to 
Windows, in the form of ``Double disk''. The original 
proposed settlement, breakup of Microsoft, and a Windows product 
without Internet Explorer was by far the best proposal. I believe 
the remaining nine states, and now AOL, are absolutely right to 
demand a much better solution to a major monopolistic company that 
Microsoft is. Not to mention the arrogance of Mr. Bill Gates.
    I. L. Koelling email = [email protected]



MTC-00024644

From: Russell Tilton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:11pm
Subject: microsoft
    We hope that Microsoft stays strong in the marketplace. 
Personally, we like their products and have no complaints about 
their service. I would hate to see another negative impact on the NW 
at this point in time. As long as there are checks and balances, I 
don't even mind if they control the market place because 
decentralization may be cumbersome and difficult to work with given 
the technical expertise needed to work with different systems. They 
would all need to be integrated. A big order, wouldn't you say?



MTC-00024645

From: Jerome
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Federal Anti-trust settlement in this case was a travesty. 
It did little to a company that violated past agreements on anti-
competative behavior of microsoft. The American public deserves a 
Judicial system that will look out for them, and this settlements do 
not do this. The Government has proven their case agenst Microsoft, 
and the Federal Courts have a duty to the people of the United 
States to ensure that it does not happen again, and the only way 
that they can do this is to apply a penelty which will discourage, 
or make it impossable for Microsoft to practice this behavior in the 
future. Given some of Microsoft's latest aquisitions (intelectual 
property which includes a rival 3-D graphics technology, Open GL), 
and software technologies in thier latest OS, I feel that they have 
continued these pracices even while litigation in the current Anti-
trust case is pending. I would like to see harsher penelties applied 
to Microsoft for these reasons.
    Jerome Gantner



MTC-00024646

From: Nick Snyder
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the only thing Microsoft should be able to do, is 
pay the money. They should not donate software, computers and what 
not. They should put the money into a ``fund'' for each 
school and have the school buy what computer software, hardware and 
whatever other computer stuff they need.
    Thought I would share.
    Nick Snyder



MTC-00024647

From: L.C. Mathison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:16pm
Subject: Stop Microsoft's Monolopy
    The proposed DOJ vs Microsoft settlement is bad for everyone 
except Microsoft. Please do not accept and make legal the monolopy 
Microsoft now holds. Please take any appropriate measures to 
completely stop Microsoft's monolopy by breaking them into 
competitive companies or stop the pre loading of Microsoft Operating 
systems and add-on programs such as Internet Explorer which caused 
the first public outcry.
    Please!
    Please!
    Listen to the people!
    Leslie C. Mathison
    1128 West Collinwood Circle
    Opelika, AL 36801
    Phone 334-749-5891



MTC-00024648

From: Son, Seha (S.)
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 2:14pm
Subject: Current AOL litigation
    I believe that the both companies time and resources should be 
spent toward ultimate end-consumers, not in the courtroom. Both 
companies should be engaged in fair and mutual competition and 
perhaps cooperation for the benefit of ,again, consumers. I'd like 
to see AOL's litigation to end immediately so that the consumers 
win.



MTC-00024649

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Glenn Koons
    5314 4th
    Long Beach, CA 90814



MTC-00024650

From: Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is not sufficient punishment to 
Microsoft. Microsoft uses their control of the operating system harm 
other companies who were trying to compete. A proper settlement 
would lessen the power that Microsoft wields over the industry.
    Tom Solnok
    706 Sumac Rd
    Derby, KS 67037



MTC-00024651

From: Scott Layman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to see Microsoft broken up. If not broken up, then 
the governmnt needs to keep a very close watch on them. Microsoft 
shouldn't decide on thier punishment. The courts should, and the 
punishment should not be in Microsoft's favor. The giving 1 billion 
$ of microsoft products to schools is just feeding the monoploy 
fire! Microsoft's business practices are down right EVIL. It amazes 
me at how they could get away with most of the stuff they do. 
Microsoft's punishment needs to be harsh.



MTC-00024652

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:18pro
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
RICHARD LAMB

[[Page 27517]]

1357 43rd Avenue Unit 35
Greeley, Colorado 80634
January 25,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The reason I am writing to you is to ask that you make certain 
the settlement that was reached recently between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft is concluded. I am concerned that anti-
Microsoft groups may try to harm the settlement process. The Justice 
Department and Microsoft want to settle this case. Antagonists of 
the settlement contend that this agreement is hard enough on 
Microsoft. However, considering this settlement makes Microsoft 
share more information with competing software firms than ever 
before proves these contentions are wrong. This settlement discloses 
Microsoft/Es internal interfaces, which is a major concession and 
unprecedented. Also, Microsoft has agreed to share its secrets of 
server interoperability. With these two disclosures, Microsoft will 
be creating more competitiveness in the IT industry. Opponents of 
the settlement don't seem to be concerned with this; they appear to 
have more concern with punishing Microsoft.
    I appreciate you taking time to consider my views on this issue. 
I urge you to settle this case as has been planned.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Lamb



MTC-00024655

From: Sonia Arrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Settlement of US v. Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The Pacific Research Institute is a non-profit, San Francisco-
based public policy think tank dedicated to promoting individual 
freedom and personal responsibility. This letter is being submitted 
to the courts as part of the Tunney Act proceedings as it relates to 
the Final Judgment Stipulation and Competitive Impact Statement in 
US v. Microsoft. On behalf of Pacific Research Institute, I have 
written on and researched the Microsoft issue extensively. It is the 
position of our organization that approving the settlement in this 
case is in the best interest of consumers and the technology 
industry.
    As the director for the Pacific Research Institutes Center for 
Technology Studies, I have worked on this issue from very early on 
in its history. I reviewed the position of the federal government 
and state attorneys general as well as the position taken by 
MicrosoftA competitors. The antitrust case brought against Microsoft 
was neither justified nor in the best interest of American 
consumers. Now, four years later, the courts have an opportunity to 
mitigate the mistakes made by the Justice Department and previous 
courts by supporting the settlement. The settlement being proposed 
is the right course of action to take. By forcing Microsoft to open 
their operating system, prevent unfair bundling, and create various 
forms of oversight, the settlement will address the concerns of 
those who called for this trial in the beginning. As an added 
benefit, accepting the settlement will provide a greatly needed lift 
for the national economy. The damaging effect of this case on our 
economy is obvious. In the two weeks when the first round of 
settlement talks between Microsoft and Justice Department collapsed, 
the value of Microsoft stock in the California Public Employees 
Retirement System fell by over $700 million. Our current economic 
climate is not one that can easily withstand another setback of that 
severity. I am including with this letter an article I wrote in July 
2001 and a white paper written by our policy fellow, Helen Chaney. I 
hope this information is helpful to the court.
    Sincerely,
    Sonia Arrison
    Director, Center for Technology Studies
    Pacific Research Institute
    755 Sansome Street, suite 450
    San Francisco, CA 94111
    451-989-0833 x107



MTC-00024656

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Clyde Reynolds
    2012 17th Ave
    Forest Grove, OR 97116



MTC-00024659

From: Phil Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I respectfully ask that you carefully avoid being swayed by a 
massive Microsoft-led write-in campaign. I do not favor the 
``billion dollars in computers and software to schools'' 
settlement for many reasons. It is difficult to trust Microsoft, 
given the lies Bill Gates is prone to telling. Would Microsoft claim 
the $429 cost for every copy of Microsoft Office it would give to 
schools? Or would they claim their actual cost of somewhere less 
than $2? I suspect the latter. When that copy of Microsoft Office 
has to be upgraded, doesn't this lock the schools into Microsoft 
products far beyond the initial copy of the application? Apple 
Computer is much admired and used in schools. This is one area where 
Microsoft does not have a 90 to 10 advantage over Apple. The 
proposed settlement would tear into Apple's share. Given the extreme 
wealth of Microsoft, gained while unlawfully running roughshod over 
other companies, one billion dollars in restitution is a huge joke. 
Perhaps 10 or 15 billion might be more rational. Microsoft is one 
huge predatory company, intent on taking over EVERYTHING in the 
computer and internet world and MORE. Strong penalties are 
necessary.
    Thanks for listening to an every-day computer user.
    Phil Russell
    1420 SW Crest Circle
    Waldport, OR 97394
    541-563-2501
    Explaining the proposed Microsoft punishment:
    ``...someone is caught breaking into your house, offers to 
repair the damage instead of going to jail, if they can put up a 
massive billboard for their house maintenance business in your front 
yard for six months...''--MacOpinion



MTC-00024660

From: Joel T. Osburn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:21pm
Subject: Please reject the proposed settlement
    A quick review of pertinent Facts: * Microsoft had (and 
maintains) a monopoly on desktop computer operating systems. * 
Microsoft used (and still uses) this monopoly to extend it's reach 
into other markets. * Microsoft developed monopolies in other 
markets using this general tactic, including but not limited to: 
internet browsing software, office suites, entry level database 
software. * Microsoft violated a Consent Decree issued 15 July, 1994 
(Civil Action # 94-1564, US vs. Microsoft (http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0047.htm), also as a result of abusing 
it's monopoly to stifle competition, and extend into new markets. * 
In court, Microsoft, including it's Chairman and it's CEO, 
repeatedly lied under oath. * By extending it's monopoly via these 
illegal means, Microsoft has grown at unprecedented rates for twenty 
years, and is one of the richest corporations in the world, with no 
debt, and a vast amount of cash. Observations regarding the impact 
of the above facts on consumers: * The price of software in those 
markets which Microsoft dominates has remained steady while in other 
markets average prices have dropped. * There have been no new 
innovations in general internet browsing software from Microsoft 
since they released version 5 of Internet Explorer over four years 
ago. The pace of innovation previously observed was a direct result 
of competition that no longer exists. Microsoft's Internet Explorer 
has yet to conform to published, accepted standards;

[[Page 27518]]

instead, web developers conform to Internet Explorer's peculiarities 
rather than the accepted standards. This leads to: By dominating 
markets, Microsoft has positioned itself and it's products as a 
defacto standard by extending it's monopoly. This prevents 
competition; potential competitors cannot meet an unpublished 
defacto standard, and therefore cannot compete; products developed 
in this manner appear substandard to the public, which expects 
behavior as per the ``standard'' set by the monopoly. Thus 
competition is stifled and innovation outside of Microsoft limited 
to those areas in which Microsoft either cannot or has yet to 
leverage it's existing monopolies to enter.
    The proposed settlement fails to: * Compensate any of those 
affected, either directly or indirectly, by Microsoft's pattern of 
illegal behavior. * Require Microsoft to either adhere to published 
standards, or publish those features and behaviors that it has 
established as defacto standards. * Prevent Microsoft from tying any 
given new product to it's existing monopolies unbeknownst to the 
general public, through the common practice of requiring Non 
Disclosure Agreements before any information is exchanged or 
contract negotiated. Therefore a company must risk it's very 
existence under threat of lawsuits, in order to accuse Microsoft of 
repeating it's illegal behavior. * Provide expedient, impartial 
resolution of future examples of the same illegal behavior. A 
``three strikes'' type clause may be appropriate, and I'll 
note that this particular case is actually a second strike, having 
been brought about by Microsoft's failing to abide by the Consent 
Decree it agreed to over seven years ago. * Provide any current or 
future competitors any assurance that they will be able to compete 
on equal footing, thus raising the requirement to even begin to 
compete. * Prevent Microsoft from holding equity in or substantial 
contracts with any direct competitors. They currently hold equity in 
Apple Computer, which is currently the only legitimate competitor 
for desktop operating systems, and have a major development 
agreement with Corel, makers of WordPerfect. This creates a 
potential conflict of interest for those ``competitors'': 
Apple Computer stopped shipping Netscape Navigator with it's 
personal computers, instead shipping Microsoft's Internet Explorer 
(which defeats Microsoft's argument that Internet Explorer is a part 
of the Windows Operating System, and, since this was in exchange for 
$150 million) constitutes illegal dumping); immediately upon 
receiving from Microsoft a major influx of capital along with a 
development contract, Corel stopped development of it's version of 
the Linux Operating System, and the version of the WordPerfect suite 
of ``office'' applications for the Linux Operating system. 
This would appear to be anti-competitive.
    Please reject the proposed settlement; many more appropriate 
suggestions have been fielded for how to remedy the illegal behavior 
exhibited by Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Joel T. Osburn



MTC-00024665

From: Peter C Lott
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 2:21pm
Subject: USAGLott_Peter_1016--0115.doc
2700 S Sunland Drive
Tempe, AZ 85282-3387
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As I read more about the recent developments in the Microsoft 
settlement, I become more frustrated in the fact that it may be even 
further delayed. By delaying the enforcement of this agreement, we 
directly delay the advancement of our American technology industry. 
As the rest of the global market moves on, America's technology 
industry is forced to focus on litigation rather than innovation. 
Not only has Microsoft agreed to make changes in licensing and 
marketing, but has agreed to design future versions of Windows for 
easier installation of non-Microsoft software. Beyond this, 
Microsoft has agreed to be monitored by a committee in order to 
ensure that they follow proper procedure. All of these concessions 
are clearly a step toward a more unified technology industry. By 
working together, we help our American technology industry maintain 
its position of leadership in this highly competitive global market. 
As we face this competitive market, we must be prepared for the many 
changes involved in this industry. By being able to focus on 
innovation, we can be prepared for these changes and stay on top of 
the market. By enforcing this agreement, we will be able to utilize 
it as a guideline for advancement within the market.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Lott



MTC-00024686

From: John Coble
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:23pm
Subject: Public Comment
    This is a Public Comment on the proposed settlement among the 
Justice Department, the Nine States and Microsoft Corporation. I am 
also including comments about AOL in its recent filing: I have been 
a user of Microsoft Windows and many other Microsoft Products for 
many years. Definitively not because they are the only ones 
available, but solely because they are the best. (And indeed I have 
tried many others). No one using Microsoft Windows (any version) is 
forced to use MSN Internet Browsers as every computer manufacturer 
lists a wide range of other providers. As for many others including 
the worst AOL you can go to any computing store and many other 
stores and get a free CD to load in to your PC in a matter of 
minutes and use their service. Just because Microsoft has started 
including Internet Explorer as an integral part of Windows does not 
force you into something that you do not want. You can indeed delete 
their ICONS and use any other provider that you desire without any 
degrade to the general functioning of Windows. I was with AOL and 
used Netscape and found them to be rife with problems and forced 
spam of every thing from porno to advertising of anything you could 
name. I finally got off of AOL and went with QWest because they 
offered a high speed connection (DSL). I continued to use Netscape 
until I could no longer stand the errors and finally switched to MSN 
Internet Explorer and could not be happier. Every Microsoft product 
that I use is the best and at the best price.
    Finally, I do believe that every one that appeared before the 
courts against Microsoft have in some way been connected to other 
manufactures or states. (Probably paid off). This case can be 
settled quickly if the U.S. District Judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly 
would issue an order that with any settlement there will be no money 
involved. Each party will handle their own legal expenses and once 
the Judge rules on the case, that is it. No further charges or 
appeals will be accepted. And for any person or group testifying 
against Microsoft they must be investigated to determine their ties 
to other manufactures, states and now AOL. As a final step in the 
settlement the Judge should ask that the nine states involved should 
report back to the court within one year on their actions to stop 
using Microsoft Products. This is a long dissertation; however, I am 
fed up with my tax dollars being spent on this insurrection against 
one of the best companies in the world by a bunch of money hungry 
companies/states that could not succeed on their own.
    John T. Coble
    2647 98th Ave. NE
    Clyde Hill, WA 98004
    425 454-4632



MTC-00024688

From: Frank de Lange
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:22pm
Subject: On the Microsoft settlement
    Dear sir/madam,
    Even though I may not be a US citizen, I still want to add some 
comments to the proposed settlement in the case Microsoft vs. DoJ. I 
am a self-employed IT service architect, who has been employed by 
several Dutch and international companies. Others have commented on 
many aspects of the settlement. Much of the text seems reasonable. I 
see two minor points which might need some improvement.
    Point 1:
    Under I.1. ``All terms, including royalties [...] 
reasonable and non-discriminatory.'' I would like to refer you 
to a discussion on RAND (Reasonable and non-Discriminatory) 
licensing as has been proposed for the world wide web consortium 
(The organization which sets standards for the world wide web). 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/
WD_patent_policy_20010816/ Note especially 
objections made by some of the w3c contributors. To wit: rand is not 
non-discriminatory. It discriminates directly against Open Source 
and Free Software projects. These projects simply cannot use or pay 
for such RAND licensing due to their legal structure. The arguments 
that could be made here are very similar to those stated in the w3c 
discussion. Here are some arguments

[[Page 27519]]

of my own: Royalty Free (RF) Licensing has been proposed as an 
alternative, and overcomes this weakness. Why are Free Software and 
Open Source Software important? There are two arguments based on 
reason, and one is based on simple demonstration: (1) The free 
software operating system GNU/Linux is considered by many to be a 
somewhat important competitor to Microsoft. It is distributed under 
the GNU general public licence (GPL) which is a distribution 
license. Allowing Microsoft to discriminate against such competitor 
would not be fair. It could also hardly be called non-
discriminatory, of course.
    (2) As far as I know, original implementations of RFC 791 
(Internet Protocol) and RFC 793 (Transmission Control Protocol) were 
released under the university of California's' ``Berkeley 
Software Distribution'' License. This is a free software 
license. These 2 protocols form the heart of the current day 
Internet. The implementation was left Royalty Free, and hence all 
parties adopted it. Also, since the original source was open, all 
parties could learn from it, and the TCP/IP system was quickly 
adopted worldwide. This is very important. references: IETF RFCs can 
be obtained from many sources. Here is one on the world wide web.: 
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/rfc/rfc791.txt http://
www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/rfc/rfc793.txt
    (3) Quite simply put: The Simple Mail Transfer Protocol(RFC821) 
is royalty free, to the best of my knowledge. This protocol is used 
to transmit E-mail across the Internet. If it were not for SMTP, and 
if it were not for its royalty free status, I would not have been 
able to send this message. A possible solution to the shortcoming in 
I.1. (and similar problems with related points under I) would be to 
allow for Royalty Free licensing of at very least the data 
interchange formats used by Microsoft.
    As an aside: Requiring Microsoft to submit their data formats 
(such as word and excel) to the International Standards Organization 
(ISO) might improve the situation further. Such standards 
organizations argue that good standardization has demonstrably 
improved economic gain, and stimulated competition between all 
parties concerned. I think that even Microsoft might actually gain 
from such an action in the long run. I see nothing wrong with this, 
because such gain would result from fair competition. Reference: 
www.iso.org
    Point 2:
    Under J it is said that Microsoft may not disclose information 
about security systems, and may set almost any requirement when 
sharing security information with a security vendor.
    I am a hacker, not a `certified computing security 
professional'. I do not feel the need to be certified by any 
vendor, as these certifications usually are no more than a guarantee 
of sbujectivity. Open knowledge of algorithms and methods is a 
requirement for truly strong security. This seems reasonable to me. 
After all, if one knows of a certain weakness, one can compensate 
for it and prevent people from exploiting it.
    If a hostile element was to be the only person to know a 
weakness in a security system, then that person would certainly be 
able to exploit that weakness. Further, security systems which are 
put up for public review can quickly be assessed for potential 
weaknesses, and these weaknesses can be repaired. No such process 
can be used for systems which are kept secret. A second slight 
problem which some people have brought up is that there might be a 
weakness here. People might state ``security concerns'' as 
an excuse to sidestep what they are required to do under I in some 
situations. In fact this does not seem very hard to do from a 
technical perspective.
    In short, section J on the whole might have some weaknesses. It 
might be a good idea to gain advice from one or more security 
experts (such as perhaps a professor teaching about data encryption, 
or people employed by a government security agency) to determine if 
this is indeed the case.
    Kind regards,
    Frank de Lange
    Moldau 27
    8226MV Lelystad
    The Netherlands



MTC-00024689

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't feel that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-
trust action adequately addresses the issue of monopoly. It lets the 
monopoly remain. I feel that the best solution would be to break 
Microsoft into at least 3 pieces, each with rights to the full 
intellectual property of the existing company. The new companies 
would then have to compete against each other. The disruption during 
the breakup would also provide some time for alternative competition 
to join the market or gain market share. I personally am an Apple 
MacIntosh user, and I am continually frustrated by the lack of 
``shelf space'' that retailers provide for non-Microsoft 
products. I am also worried about the gradual creep of Microsoft 
software becoming the only supported software on Apple systems. My 
ISP, AT&T broadband, does not support Netscape as a browser or 
email client. They only support Internet Explorer and Outlook 
Express from Microsoft.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Peter C. Damron



MTC-00024690

From: Lawrence F Povirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
8127 Brown Road
Richmond, VA 23235
January 25, 2002
    To the United States Department of Justice:
    Like many investors, I own, through various mutual funds, 
thousands of dollars worth of Microsoft (MS) stock. Yet, lately I 
find myself wishing MS would simply close down and vanish. Why? 
Because I am also a computer user. I spend at least half my working 
hours at the computer, and like most users, I have dealt with MS 
products for years. The quality of those products has been variable, 
but that has been true of most software, so I could not complain too 
loudly. If I found one of their products genuinely dysfunctional, I 
could dump it and choose a competing product, as I did several 
times. Lately, however, I feel I am being increasingly coerced into 
using MS products, as the alternatives have gradually disappeared. 
As anyone familiar with the industry knows, this is not because MS 
has come up with more innovative or more reliable software. Rather, 
it is because they have been able to target any popular piece of 
software they choose, use the cash flow from Windows to build a 
functional duplicate of it from the ground up, bundle their copycat 
version with Windows or sell it below cost, and drive their 
competitor out of business. This is classic, textbook monopolist 
behavior, and it is beginning to stifle the whole computer industry. 
We need not belabor whether MS acted improperly. Their culpability 
has already been established. What is at is issue is coming up with 
an effective remedy, that will restore some degree of consumer 
choice. It is not only companies harmed by MS's behavior, or 
consumers frustrated by their lack of choice, but disinterested 
industry analysts as well, who all agree that the settlement now 
proposed will do almost nothing to alter MS's mode of business or to 
bring competition back to the software market. There are, however, 
remedies that might actually make some progress toward that end.
    First and foremost, no one should have to pay for a MS product 
that they do not want. I recently began shopping for a notebook 
computer, and found it was virtually impossible to buy one from a 
major manufacturer that was not preloaded with Windows. IBM and Dell 
both used to offer models with Linux instead, but no longer. 
Tellingly, both manufacturers took them off the market just when the 
Justice Department gave up its only real leverage in the antitrust 
case by removing the threat of a MS breakup.
    This coercion of consumers to buy a product they do not want 
(Windows) in order to get one that they do want (a computer) is 
precisely what the antitrust laws were intended to prevent. Hence, 
at a bare minimum, a simple mechanism should be set up such that 
anyone can get a full refund for any piece of MS software that was 
bundled with any piece of hardware that they purchased. To 
circumvent MS's considerable skills in price manipulation, amount of 
the refund should be set at the greater of the amount the 
manufacturer paid MS for the software, or a fixed fraction, say 70%, 
of the retail price of the software. Moreover, the price charged by 
MS to manufacturers for preloaded software should be required to be 
published and uniform, so that MS cannot reward manufacturers for 
promoting MS's interests, or, more importantly, punish them for not 
doing so. If a consumer wants to return only part of an 
``integrated'' piece of software say, keep Windows but get 
rid of Internet Explorer, they also should be able to do so, and get 
a partial refund based on the approximate size of that part of the 
software (i.e., number of lines of computer code) relative to the 
whole. Obviously, MS itself cannot be trusted to handle the refund

[[Page 27520]]

process itself; that will have to be done by an independent entity 
set up specifically for that purpose, and under court oversight. In 
the past, MS has argued that, were this to be allowed, users would 
return the software, and keep using it anyway, or use an illegal 
copy. But with MS's new authentication/registration requirements, 
this practice will become impossible, and their argument will become 
moot--the one small benefit of an otherwise reprehensible 
policy that may soon widen the ``digital divide'' into a 
chasm.
    Second, to help level the field in application software, MS 
should be required to publish the specifications of its main file 
formats such as .doc, .ppt and .xls. Currently, I am often forced to 
use MS Word, a program I passionately hate, because coworkers send 
me documents in MS Word (.doc) format. While competing word 
processors have devoted considerable effort to creating filters to 
import and export .doc files, those filters not very reliable, 
partly if not primarily because the .doc format is secret and ever-
changing. Publishing the specifications would probably not solve all 
interconversion problems, but it certainly would help. Furthermore, 
MS should be required to maintain input filters of their own for the 
next three competing applications (e.g., WordPerfect, StarOffice and 
Applixware word processors), so that documents created on those 
applications will open in Word, Powerpoint and Excel. Again, and 
unfortunately, an independent entity will have to be set up to 
monitor compliance. Even so, none of this even begins to address 
what may be a much greater means of coercion in the future: MS's 
apparent plans to make it more and more inconvenient for any Windows 
user to use any internet services that compete with their own MSN 
and Passport services. We are now getting only the first hints to 
what those tactics will be, but they are clearly going to be 
inextricably built into Windows, and virtually impossible for any 
Windows user to avoid. Given their control of so much of the basic 
operation of home and office computers, they really should be barred 
from providing network services at all. Given that such a 
restriction is unlikely, their behavior in this area will have to be 
closely monitored as well, to ensure that they do not shut out 
competitors entirely.
    Of course, I realize that there are those who are perfectly 
satisfied with the closed, controlled world of computing provided to 
them by Microsoft. But 20 years ago, there were those who were 
equally satisfied with AT&T's monopoly phone service, and were 
dumbfounded at the government's effort to break it up. There were 
even those who were satisfied with the state-controlled monopolies 
of the Communist era. That doesn't mean they should have been 
preserved. History has taught us over and over again that monopolies 
are a stagnating, corrosive influence on any industry they control, 
whether it's oil or software. In every case where they were broken 
up, the result was a wave of innovation and expansion, often going 
beyond the dreams of even the most enthusiastic trust-busters. I 
would challenge you to name a single case where the forced 
restoration of competition in an industry, resulted in worse 
products being available to consumers. Despite their stability and 
economies of scale, monopolies are, invariably, a bad deal for 
consumers, entrepreneurs and society at large; a bad deal for 
everyone but the monopolists themselves. Microsoft is no different. 
A copy of this comment in PDF format with facsimile signature, is 
attached.
    Sincerely,
    Lawrence F. Povirk



MTC-00024691

From: Robin Downie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    The enclosed letter is for your consideration.
    Thank you,
    Robin Downic
    2684 Elm Drive
    Brier, WA 98036-8940
January21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Deparment 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. The issue has been 
dragged out for over three years and it is time to put it to rest. 
Microsoft and the industry need to move on.
    Some critics say that Microsoft has gotten off easy. In fact, 
the settlement is quite strict. Microsoft agreed to give computer 
makers the freedom to install and promote any software that they see 
fit. Microsoft has also agreed not to enter into any contract with 
any computer maker that obligates the computer maker to exclusively 
promote Microsoft software. In fact, Microsoft has agreed to terms 
that extend well beyond the products and procedures that were 
actually at issue in the suit. In order to move forward, Microsoft 
has The settlement is fair and should be accepted. forward is to put 
the case in the past. made many concessions. The only way to move
    Sincerely,
    Robin Downie 00024691--0002



MTC-00024691

From: Tony Magnuson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:25pm
Subject: anti-trust case
    The settlement was presented in a way that showed Microsoft's 
cost in settlement as inflated. The perception is one of Justice 
serving special interests. This is in the face of the large cache of 
capital Microsoft maintains which constitutes a tax break for the 
company and its investors and inflates the value of its stock. A 
decision by Justice should foster competition, increase shareholder 
value overall, increase transparency, and send a message that 
dissembling tactics are not acceptable, even by powerful 
corporations. I believe the original proposal to break Microsoft 
into discrete units would have accomplished this. Microsoft is not 
the only company in the tech arena to be guilty of such tactics, but 
it represents a clear starting point. This action should not finish 
with a settlement like this that shows the federal government 
partnering with Microsoft in wrongdoing. This action should be a 
beginning of scrutiny of the standards of behavior for industry and 
the nation as a whole. You will remember Enron.
    I am a small business owner and investor in Northern California 
and user of Microsoft products. I do not want a refund from the 
company nor anything that would benefit the company nor even the 
sector specifically. Such a settlement would validate legal bullying 
and squabbling as a method of reducing competition. I would like to 
see any settlement invested in the establishment of fairness and 
transparency in industry as a whole.
    sincerely,
    David Magnuson
    Moss Beach, California



MTC-00024693

From: John (038) Sandee Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:27pm
Subject: Gates lawsuit
    This is not about forcing people to buy browsers other than 
Microsoft. This is about inferior products being pawned off on 
unsuspecting consumers. The average computer owner has little or no 
knowledge of how their computer operates--they shouldn't have 
to it should be designed to work for them. Bill Gates puts out 
inferior products before they are perfected. He has the money to 
hipe his products. Unsuspecting consumers have to go through hell 
using his inferior products. Hard working quality minded smaller 
companies interested in coming out with superior products don't have 
the funds or connections to get their products included in the sale 
of a computer. The general public will benefit because small 
businesses with superior products are benefiting because Bill Gates 
has been called on the carpet for unscrupulous tactics. Please 
realize Bill Gates is not interested in quality product. His ONLY 
interest is quantity profits at any expense.



MTC-00024694

From: Rick Peterson
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    I have worked in Silicon Valley for 15 years and have personal 
contact with many high-tech companies. There is a very common theme 
and that is ``fear of Microsoft''. Microsoft has clearly 
abused their monopoly. There are companies that never get funded 
because they predict that Microsoft will not allow the competition. 
This is unhealthy for our economy! We need the best technology and 
the best software to have a chance to make it to the marketplace and 
to compete fairly there. This won't happen if Microsoft is somehow 
threatened by it. Microsoft has demonstrated its

[[Page 27521]]

complete disregard for the law. They do not operate with honor or 
fairness in the marketplace. Please do what is right and needs to 
happen. Please break up this ruthless monopoly and force Microsoft 
to play by the rules of commerce, that govern our great country.
    Sincerely,
    Rick Peterson, IDSA
    Vice President
    Studio RED
    Tel:650.324.2244 x231
    Cel:650.722.2782



MTC-00024695

From: Shulamit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, the court must consider public comments 
prior to deciding on the Microsoft proposed settlement. I am writing 
to urge you to reject the proposed settlement offer. It does nothing 
to solve the problem of Microsoft's monopoly and in fact will 
increase Microsoft's stranglehold in the education market, further 
adding to the problem.



MTC-00024696

From: JT Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the words of Robert X. Cringely (from pbs.org): Section 
III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against not-for-
profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not describe 
nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't 
meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...'' This loophole (as well as others, but I find this the 
most offensive) are unacceptable. Please reconsider the settlement 
decision.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter.



MTC-00024697

From: jeff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello Renata--
    As a resident of Washington you would think I would be favoring 
Microsoft in this action. That is not the case. The current 
settlement actually has the effect of further strengthening 
Microsoft's monopoly. Make them give the school cash and let the 
schools decide on what equipment and software to purchase.
    Apple Computer has traditionally been very strong in the 
education market and this is simply a backdoor play for Microsoft to 
gain market share.
    Thank you for letting me voice my opinion.
    Jeff Chin



MTC-00024698

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:28pm
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,
    Jamie Pence
    PO Box 752
    Clinton, MO 64735-0752



MTC-00024699

From: Landrus, Kurt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this settlement is an extremely bad solution. This is 
not a punishment form Microsoft monoplistic prcatices, it merely 
enables them to expand into another niche market (education) they do 
not yet already own.
    They have plenty of cash, the settlement should require them to 
put up cash not donations of MS software.
    Please stop this insaity from being approved.
    Kurt Landrus



MTC-00024700

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    The settlement with Microsoft seems fair and equitable and 
should be settled. It would seem that at this point in history the 
people would be better served utilizing government resources in more 
productive ways.
    Sincerely yours,
    Claudia Pletter



MTC-00024701

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:31pm
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,
    J. NINER
    149 Topaz
    Kissee Mills, MO 65680



MTC-00024702

From: Connie Wickland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
9928 181st Avenue NE
Redmond, WA 98052
January 25, 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 opinions regarding the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I believe that your office reached a fair and 
reasonable settlement that should allow the industry to return its 
focus to innovation, rather than litigation.
    Microsoft has already agreed to concessions that have set new 
antitrust precedent. The competition will be allowed to use Windows 
as a springboard to launch their products that compete directly to 
those programs already included within Windows. Also, Microsoft will 
disclose, for the competition, various interfaces in its Windows 
operating system. Most importantly, Microsoft has agreed not to 
retaliate against any software or hardware developers that develop 
or promote software that competes with Windows or that runs on 
software that competes with Windows.
    Microsoft has made these concessions because it realizes that 
settling the case sooner is better than later. If these concessions 
were asked from more traditional and understandable industries, I 
think they would be denounced as going against the principles of 
competition and free enterprise. Imagine if every Coke can had to 
have a sample of Pepsi inside, or if McDonalds had to offer Burger 
King's Whopper to those that wanted it. Would that be reasonable?
    This settlement will allow the consumers, the industry, and the 
economy to move forward. I hope when reviewing this case it will be 
judged it by its merits, and not by the everlasting chain of 
competitors'' demands.
    Sincerely,
    Connie WicklandGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download 
:
    http://explorer.msn.com



MTC-00024703

From: Jay W. Luther
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 27522]]

Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    United States v. Microsoft has been a long and complicated case, 
and a detailed critique of the proposed settlement it has spawned is 
best left to those who have considered the implications of every 
line. As one who has represented software concerns, and has some 
sense of the industry, I would simply offer my conclusion: It is 
highly likely that the proposed settlement will be completely 
ineffectual. Put another way, it appears to me that it will have no 
impact on the industry as the industry currently exists, though some 
of its provisions might have been modestly helpful in preserving 
browser completion during the Netscape-Explorer fight.
    Particularly egregious here is the carve-out of the free 
software movement from essentially all of the proposed judgment's 
benefit. In operating systems, this is the only competition to MS 
that is significant today, and if there is to be any benefit to 
consumers from the judgment, open source representatives must have 
full, complete, and prompt access to all significant 
interoperability data for Windows, MS middleware and MS Office, with 
access being controlled by disinterested third parties. This is also 
true for all competitive office applications. After all these years, 
it's time to bring to a close the famous axiom, ``DOS's 
[Windows's] not done ``til Lotus [WordPerfect, Netscape, etc.] 
won't run.''
    Jay W. Luther
    Law Offices of Jay W. Luther
    Voice: 415-456-6197
    Fax: 415-456-8597 00024703--0002 01/29/2002 
10:08



MTC-00024705

From: Thomas M. Ferlauto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the settlement. Microsoft has proven to be a 
monopolistic predator. From Netscape to Java to countless other 
examples, Microsoft has used its dominate position in the PC desktop 
OS market to bully competitors or even drive them out of business. 
The justice department, at the tax payer's great expense, prevailed 
and demonstrated Microsoft to have violated the law. This settlement 
renders all of that effort futile and teaches Microsoft the valuable 
lesson that you can violate the law, but if you fight like hell in 
the courts you can get away with it. This will only encourage 
Microsoft to continue its illegal behavior (to this day, Microsoft 
contends they did nothing wrong). To teach Microsoft a lesson, to 
deter future criminal conduct, to make Microsoft a good corporate 
citizen, to foster free competition, and to benefit the consumers, 
it is imperative that the settlement be rejected and more drastic 
remedies be sought.
    The problem is Microsoft's dominance in the OS market. This 
gives Microsoft the power, which they are too at ease with using, to 
dominate every other aspect of computing. Control over the OS leads 
to control over office suites, which leads to control over web 
browsers, which leads to control over internet access and content. 
This domino effect will never end until Microsoft's OS division is 
made a separate company from its software and internet divisions. 
That is the remedy that I suggest.



MTC-00024706

From: C.D. Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ Team:
    First, thank you for all you've been busy doing on the terrorism 
front. I deeply appreciate and support what your team has been 
doing--both publicly and behind the scenes--to keep all of 
us safe. I'm writing regarding the Microsoft Settlement. I've been 
in the computer industry for some number of years and have seen how 
Microsoft operates, and I'm disappointed by the proposed settlement. 
It stifles competition and the economy, and is a real disaster for 
our industry. Once upon a time, there were many companies who made 
workable word-processing programs. Innovation and competition 
flourished. How many such firms can you name today? Not many, I'll 
bet. That's because of Microsoft's aggressive tactics with Microsoft 
Word. Is it the best word processing program out there? Hard to say, 
because nobody compares any more. And there's almost nobody around 
to compare TO. And that's what I'm talking about. There should be 
dozens of companies, writing great products and competing on price. 
And they should be around the world, not just in Seattle.
    What our industry is objecting to is Microsoft's continued 
rampage against area after area of computing. First it was operating 
systems, then spreadsheets, then word processing, then browsers. 
Databases are next, followed by imaging. My company's offerings are 
next; MS is copying our technology to use in their product so they 
can tell us to go fly a kite. I am not arguing against competition; 
I'm suggesting we should HAVE some.
    My objection is not to Microsoft's ``ability to 
innovate'', it's their ability to keep others from innovating. 
By crushing other firms, they force everyone to use their product 
regardless of what it costs or how good it really is. That's bad for 
competition, bad for products, and bad for our country.
    I think the settlement--especially in the face of the 
judge's findings in the case--is a weak slap on the wrist and 
will not address any of the grievances made. What should be done? I 
don't think it's necessary for the company to be broken up IF they 
could be successfully kept out of the applications world.
    Charles D. Larson, Jr.
    Senior Manager, Technical Marketing
    Writing as a Private Citizen



MTC-00024707

From: Johnny Hsu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DO NOT SETTLE
    Settling with Microsoft will only allow them to substantially 
increase the market share in core industries where their only 
competition have an edge. To do so will only hinder the efforts of 
other companies to operate in a competitive society. To do so will 
allow Microsoft a backdoor into business areas they've always had 
trouble breaking into. Microsoft has billions of dollars behind its 
name, and plenty of this available in cash. A settlement with their 
goods would cost them a minute fraction of the entire settlement 
value. A settlement by definition implies some kind of wrongdoing. 
When a kid does something wrong, you don't just let them go. Good 
parents will punish them so that they do not make the same mistake 
again. Allowing them to settle with their products is barely a slap 
in the wrist. If a settlement is deemed necessary, then the 
government should punish them realistically, by forcing them to 
donate cash, not goods or services, on demand. Too many companies 
have been bullied out of competition through vaporware, through 
bullish and threatening tactics, through unfair business practice. 
Any other settlement besides a billion dollar cash settlement would 
be unjust.



MTC-00024708

From: Frank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses.
    This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If 
a person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit 
from those acts and then receive as a ``punishment'' 
instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have 
still benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not 
for the victims of their abuses and not for the American people in 
general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Partipilo
    234 W Main St
    Waukesha WI 53186



MTC-00024709

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 27523]]

Date: 1/25/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I think the proposed settlement between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft is not in the interests of consumers. Please 
reject this settlement and adopt the one proposed by the nine 
states.
    Sincerely,
    E. Matthew Schulz
    117 South Scott Blvd.
    Iowa City, IA 52245



MTC-00024710

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Robert Lewis
    5675 Brynwood Lane
    Ash Grove, MO 65604



MTC-00024711

From: sev
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00024712

From: Dale Caughey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:40pm
Subject: Dear Sirs:
    Dear Sirs:
    Further llitigation is a wste of taxpayers'' funds. Every 
end user had the opportunity to pick Netscape of Microsoft's 
Browser. I, like most users picked the better browser.
    For the unpicked Netscape to seek the protection of a court is 
absurd;
    Judge Jackson should have recused himself, or resign his 
position, as he didn't, nor does understantthe American system of 
fair play.
    Dale Caughey, JR



MTC-00024713

From: Matt Bingham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:43pm
Subject: MS Antitrust case.
    How to put it succinctly...? You let em go with a warning. 
(Rhetorical:) Anyone at DoJ actually believe you won't have to do 
this again in 5 years and do it right?



MTC-00024714

From: Scott Bergstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    Those businesses behind the antitrust action against Microsoft 
are simply second-rate. That they failed to win my allegiance and 
that of the consuming public is not a product of Microsoft's 
``vicious business practices'' made their products hard to 
get, but a result of the inferiority of their products. As a former 
Macintosh user, I switched to Windows when I realized that it was, 
in my opinion, a better program. The same applies to Microsoft 
Explorer vs. Netscape Navigator; the former is simply a better 
product.
    I resent immensely the implication that somehow, as a member of 
the public, I have in any way been duped by Microsoft's practices. 
To the contrary, they have given me products of tremendous utility 
at little or no cost.
    In short, they're guilty of nothing more than doing business 
well and providing services to the public cheaply.
    I'm writing this to you not as a political activist but as 
someone who believes--strongly--that the courts should not 
be suckered by second-rate businesses who are not adept enough in 
their industry to take on honest and fair competition.
    Sincerely,
Scott Bergstrom
Scott Bergstrom
Sr. Copywriter
J. Walter Thompson Specialized Communications
466 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10017
T: 212-210-1162
F: 212-210-1097
scott.bergstrom @jwtworks.com



MTC-00024715

From: Joseph Roni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    We read with dismay the recent news that AOL-Time Warner has 
brought suit against Microsoft on behalf of Netscape. We feel this 
is a political attempt to influence your decision against Microsoft.
    Again a few special interest groups are attempting to use this 
review period to derail the settlement of the Microsoft case and to 
prolong the litigation even in the midst of these uncertain economic 
times. As a private citizen my wife and I object to continuing this 
litigation. The last thing the American economy needs is more 
litigation which benefits only a few wealthy competitors who cannot 
compete with their own innovation.
    Please don't let these special interest groups defeat the public 
interest. My wife and I are retired and our invested retirement 
worth has declined significantly since this litigation was initiated 
and it seemed to us that it was one of the leading causes for the 
rapid decline of the NASDAQ stocks and the stock market in general. 
Let's settle this thing now for the good of the consumer, the 
industry and the American economy.
    Regards,
    Joseph and Virginia Roni
    Federal Way, Washington



MTC-00024716

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Section III,2,b clearly allows Microsoft to retaliate against an 
OEM that is or is contemplating shipping a PC without a Microsoft 
operating system. This is unacceptable. Microsoft should not be 
allowed to realiate against an OEM that ships a PC which does not 
include a Microsoft operating system. ``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;'' (US vs MS PFJ)
    I propose an amendment: (c) does not include a Microsoft 
Operating System
    Thank You for your consideration,
    Andrew Leonczyk



MTC-00024717

From: Stephen Fountain
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Fountain
374 West Daffodil Rd
Ruckersville, VA 22968
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,

[[Page 27524]]

    Stephen Fountain



MTC-00024718

From: Paul Hayes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I am appalled that so little has been done to deter Microsoft 
from continuing their business practices. They have clearly and 
repeatedly operated in a way counter to fairness, they are 
unquestionably a monopoly, and they constantly squelch competition. 
These certainly seem to me to fall within the purview of the US 
Justice department, and yet you do nothing. It removes my faith in 
our system of jurisprudence to see these maladies go without remedy.
    Thank you for your time.
    Paul Hayes --
    Why waste time learning when ignorance is 
instantaneous?--Hobbes



MTC-00024719

From: Bert Rivera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    Please do not let justice become a victim in the Microsoft 
monopoly case. This 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. Please make sure Microsoft doesn't get 
their hand slapped. They are a MONOPOLY!
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Bert Rivera
    5444 West 138th Place
    Hawthorne, CA. 90250



MTC-00024720

From: Zachary J. Paradis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i just wanted to voice my opinion that i believe that Microsoft 
had been bullying companies for years. they have caused the demise 
of more than a few tech companies with bright futures. these 
companies could have continued to thrive and employ people today. 
microsoft's products are generally less robust and less secure than 
their competitors, yet their monopoly in the OS/intel market has 
continually allowed them to win out. the Graphical User Interface, 
the Media Player, Chat Software, etc., are all examples of software 
which MSFT has essentially stolen, reproduced crappy versions of and 
then tied to their OS.
    i believe settlement should NOT include the donation of any 
microsoft products to schools, non-profits, etc. instead, it should 
be a significant(more than the 1 Billion dollars offered) fine, 
reparations to the likes of Apple, Netscape, Yahoo, etc., as well as 
a break up of the company. i also believe it is imperative that the 
government does NOT use microsoft software. not only is it not 
secure, but it contributes considerably to the problem.
    it is possible to create and open standard with which unix, 
macOS, linux AND windows could work...
    microsoft is just not interested in doing it. for the sake of 
the country's technological future, it is imperative that the 
government forces microsoft to open up.
    zachary j. paradis
    chicago, il



MTC-00024721

From: Steven Marx
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am completely opposed to this so-called settlement which 
imposes no penalties for Microsoft's monopolistic actions and has so 
many pro-Microsoft loopholes that it would allow the company to 
continue with any behavior it chooses. The DOJ is acting as if it 
lost the case and must accept Microsoft's term. Instead, it of 
course won the case in court and on appeal in every respect. 
Microsoft should be actually punished for their past behavior and 
put under severe and enforceable oversite in the future. Any 
restriction must be quickly enforceable rather than what has 
happened in the past such as this case, where they tie things up in 
court for years as they further expand their illegal monopoly as 
they have with Windows XP and their new software licensing scheme. 
The current agreement does nothing of any significance, it is 
actually worse than nothing as it fails to punish and allows 
Microsoft to continue business as usual. Remember, YOU WON.
    Steven Marx, Ph.D. --



MTC-00024722

From: Ben Kuryk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea!



MTC-00024723

From: Kansas Legislative Education (038) Research
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms Hesse:
    On behalf of KLEAR, Inc., an association of Kansas state 
legislators representing nearly a third of this state's current 
House and Senate office holders, I write today with their explicit 
authorization in strong support of the proposed Final Judgment to 
the Microsoft antitrust case offered by the U.S. Department of 
Justice and endorsed by nine state attorneys general. Regrettably, 
Kansas is not yet among the states agreeing to end their pursuit of 
this ill-conceived litigation. However, we will continue to press 
the free-market rationale for an end to this counter-productive 
legal course. With the direct means at our disposal, we have already 
severely restricted the state resources that may be devoted to its 
prosecution. The rationale for ending the litigation is squarely in 
line with our KLEAR philosophy. We stand for the Constitutional 
principles of limited government, individual liberty, free 
enterprise and traditional family values. From its initiation 
forward, the antitrust action against Microsoft has been an affront 
to these principles that hold real hope in achieving the greatest 
good for the greatest number of people.
    In harmony with a glut of esteemed economists and legal scholars 
from around the country, we consider the justification for the 
lawsuit to be baseless. New competitors have emerged to challenge 
Microsoft's well-earned dominance. Consumer have benefited greatly 
from reduced prices and improved products. In fact, conspicuously 
absent at trial and in endless media accounts of the controversy is 
any evidence that consumers have been harmed. To the contrary, 
Kansans have lost hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the 
antitrust litigation. Our own pension program for government 
employees in this state has seen its unfunded liability mushroom as 
a direct product of the legal attack on Microsoft.
    When we take into account such tangible negative effects, the 
fragile case theory, the inappropriate and counter-productive 
remedies imposed by Judge Jackson, and the threat to this country's 
core principles of liberty, our decision to support the proposed 
Final Judgment to this lawsuit is
    KLEAR-cut.
    Sincerely,
    Bob L. Corkins
    Executive Director
    Kansas Legislative Education & Research, Inc.
    827 SW Topeka Blvd., Topeka, KS 66612
    785.233.8765 phone
    928.244.3262 fax
    [email protected]



MTC-00024724

From: iain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I am writing to express my concern over the Microsoft 
settlement. This settlement is extremely limited, and absolutely 
unacceptable and ineffective in limiting Microsoft's predatory, 
anti-competitive behaviors that have resulted in its massive wealth 
and monopoly. Sorry I don't have time to write more,
    Best Regards,
    Iain Huxley.



MTC-00024725

From: Eric C. Forat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor: this Settlement offered by the DoJ is a disgrace to 
Justice in the US, and it will besmirch whatever was left of the 
image of impartial justice after the arrival of ``barely 
President'' G.W. Bush. In most their endeavours until now, his 
administration has consistently betrayed their oath to protect the 
Constitution, and has certainly been the the

[[Page 27525]]

worst administration since the good bad days of Nixon's. I dare hope 
that the independent Judiciary will not buckle under their 
relentless pressure. Please be true to the ideals of Justice that 
certainly you held once, and do not unleash a rogue Monopolist to 
continue its depredations on the American future.
    Sincerely yours,
    Eric C. Forat



MTC-00024726

From: Bonnie Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Letter attached.
Bonnie Williams
Have a nice day!
[email protected]



MTC-00024726-0001

7562 Highway 21 W
Madisonville, TX 77864
January 24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The intent of this letter is to urge the Justice Department to 
enact the settlement reached with Microsoft last November. The 
settlement that was reached is extremely fair and represents an end 
to this attack against Microsoft. I would hope that after three 
years of extensive mediation, the Justice Department would finally 
be satisfied with its pursuit of this antitrust dispute.
    Further, the settlement that was reached will benefit consumers 
of the technology industry. With the interim release of Windows XP, 
Microsoft will enact a mechanism into the Windows system that will 
enable users to add and delete programs into their operating system. 
Thus, users will have increased power to configure their operating 
systems to their own accords. IF MERGEFIELD PARA2 1/2PARA2+<>
    These terms are obviously beneficial to consumers. In addition, 
enacting this settlement will increase confidence in the technology 
industries once again. I would hope that the Justice Department 
recognizes the benefits in enacting this settlement at the end of 
January. IF MERGEFIELD PA RA4 1/2PARA4+<> IF MERGEFIELD PARA5 
1/2PARA5+<>
    Sincerely,
    Bonnie Williams 00024726----0002



MTC-00024727

From: Kodi Wright
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kodi Wright
PO BOX 118
Oakton, VA 22124
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,
    Kodi Wright



MTC-00024728

From: Mark Smith
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Smith
123 Easy Street
Springfield, NJ 08831
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice ,
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    To Whom it May Concern;
    Wazzzzzup?
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall 
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more 
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Your truly
    Mark Smith



MTC-00024729

From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:46pm
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,
    Barbara Mecham
    916 Heather Drive
    San Carlos, CA 94070



MTC-00024730

From: David Grantham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a person that has been using computers since the early 
eighties, I personally welcome the changes that Microsoft has 
developed. People tend to forget that before Windows 3.11 and then 
Windows 95 was released computers were fairly difficult for average 
users to deal with. The ease of use of these operating systems 
helped substantially with the boom in computer sales and usage to 
the everyday consumer.
    Even with these advances however many manufacturers of computer 
systems insisted on adding their own software to systems to make 
them even *easier*. From a purely technical standpoint many of these 
added features made useing the system much more difficult due to 
incompatibilities and poorly written software that made the 
operating system unstable. Microsoft in order to protect itself did 
the right thing by dictating what should be on the desktop and how 
the user should see the system. It is their operating system and it 
should be work as they see fit.
    The inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows has only 
improved the useage of the internet. When I first ventured into the 
world that is the internet I was only provided with a copy of 
Netscape Navigator...version 1. IE did not even exist yet. For years 
I used Netscape only, even after IE came out because Netscape 
offered a superior product, and it was free. However with version 4 
of IE that changed.
    I was able to download another free browser that offered a 
faster cleaner web experience. In comparison Netscapes offering was 
slow and clunky. Therefore I quit useing Netscape and have stuck 
with IE ever since.

[[Page 27526]]

Once IE was melded with Windows 98 it only improved the operating 
system, makeing navigation in Windows easier. Netscape as a free 
download still worked under Windows though and in no way did Windows 
98 + Internet Explorer keep me from useing Netscape 
Navigator...instead it was the slowness and instability of Netscapes 
browser that let IE change my opinion of it. Some argue that 
Microsoft cripples the Netscape browser when installed on Windows 
systems. I have never personally experienced this as Netscape on 
Linux is just as slow and problematic as it is on Windows.
    To me without Microsofts efforts we would still be useing many 
diffrent incompatible systems and the computer boom never would have 
happend. As it stands today we have three desktop platforms,
    Microsoft, Apple, and the many diffrent Linux Distributions. 
Microsofts monopoly of the desktop has offered us the ability to 
finally have a compatible platform without the worries of 
transferring files between numerous types of computers and operating 
systems. Apple gives us a similar platform offering just as much as 
Microsoft albeit at prices most people reject. Which leaves Linux as 
an upstart that may one day work out its usability issues but today 
still offers more incompatibilities than anything else.
    Microsoft should be allowed to dictate how its operating system 
is distributed on computer systems and what software can and cannot 
be bundled with it. Without this we will be thrown back to the years 
where there was more time spent with the headaches of 
incompatibility and instability than with productivity. Microsoft 
has done nothing but improve the lives of computer users and should 
not be punished for this. Instead they should be thanked for pulling 
all of us out of the dark ages of computers and continuing to 
provide us with more software features.



MTC-00024731

From: Eric Tooley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settelement in my opinion does not stop Microsoft 
from unfairly using it's market dominance in it's operating systems 
to control software markets. Microsoft should be split into two 
companies, software and operating systems.
    Thank you for your time.
    Eric Tooley
    Fireball



MTC-00024732

From: clif
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I feel there are maney problems with the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. One is that you have not realy addressed the 
applications barrier to entry.
    Another option not provided by the PFJ would be to make sure 
that Microsoft raises no artificial barriers against non-Microsoft 
operating systems which implement the APIs needed to run application 
programs written for Windows. The Findings of Fact (?52) considered 
the possibility that competing operating systems could implement the 
Windows APIs and thereby directly run software written for Windows 
as a way of circumventing the Applications Barrier to Entry. This is 
in fact the route being taken by the Linux operating system, which 
includes middleware (named WINE) that can run many Windows programs.
    Thankyou for your attention,
    Clif Cox; system administrator



MTC-00024734

From: Max
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Penelties
    I think the government should do more in regards to the 
antitrust case against Microsoft. Microsoft continues to use it's 
monopolistic market position to gain unfair competitive advantages 
with it's Windows XP product. The settlement should include more 
specific measures to restrict this type of behavior. I understand 
that the government is attempt to expedite the process and bring to 
a close the case which has dragged on for far too long. But unless 
the government comes up with a settlement that addresses future 
products and behaviors more completely, I fear that we will witness 
the same actions that caused the need for this trial in the first 
place. We will be in the same place and spend even more of the tax 
payers money to bring to trial Microsoft again. Isn't the legal 
process suppose to keep wrongful actions from occurring again, 
rather than just punish for what has happened in the past? Indeed, 
we are already witnessing this (Microsoft) corporate repeat offender 
in action again with Windows XP. enough is enough!



MTC-00024735

From: Alison N. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement with MIcrosoft is a bad 
idea.
    alison smith



MTC-00024736

From: Mike Su
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:53pm
Subject: MS/States settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    This is a matter of ANTITRUST. The proposed settlement only 
further encourages more monopolistic activities by Microsoft. This 
is not a punishment in any sense. The settlement is but a tool for 
MS marketing.
    Ying Fu Su
    47 Ceadr Street
    Chapel Hill, NC 27514



MTC-00024737

From: Jeff Disher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I do hope that you will not allow Microsoft to settle under the 
current terms. First of all, it is a very small penalty ($1 billion) 
in comparison to the amount of money they have made by committing 
these crimes. This would not properly ensure a deterrent to stop 
them from doing it again. Also, the distribution of this money as 
their own products is purely ridiculous. Note that, since Microsoft 
would be primarily donating their own software to parties that would 
not otherwise be buying it, they aren't actually spending any money 
to provide these reparations. Most important is the long-term effect 
of this settlement on the receiving markets. Since these markets 
were going to continue using products made by the competitors of 
Microsoft, they would now be in a position where it was in their 
best interests to continue using the software they had acquired for 
free rather than paying to update what they were using. This will 
have a terribly detrimental effect on the computer software industry 
since none of their competitors would be making sales to these 
markets. In effect, this settlement would be perpetuating and aiding 
the problem that it was meant to solve. This is simply ridiculous 
since it leaves the software industry in a worse condition than it 
was before this began.
    I can see a few reasonable solutions: 1) Uphold the earlier 
decision of the court to break-up the company and proceed with that 
(bad side effects: short-term disruption in the computer industry on 
a theoretical level. Since the application and operating system 
devisions of the company would still exist, albeit as different 
parts, they could still service all of their customers. The only 
difference the end-user would notice would be a change in the 
company name and logo but that shouldn't effect their productivity. 
Good side-effects: potential to open new markets that were formerly 
unreachable by competing companies as well as potentially stronger 
long-term revenues of technology companies currently under financial 
pressure. Primary benefits would be to companies distributing 
alternative operating systems, competing office suite products and 
platform-independence tools such as Java).
    2) Insist that Microsoft pay a greater settlement fee than $1 
billion and insist that it is in cash, not their own products (bad 
side effects: this would not actually solve any problem relating to 
this case. Good side effects: the markets receiving this money would 
immediately benefit from it. All companies in the market would 
benefit from the spending of this money in more ``fair'' 
measures).
    I hope that my ideas and your experience can help resolve this 
issue in a method that could benefit all parties involved to their 
owed degrees.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Disher
    President and Lead Developer of Spectral Class
    Spectral Class: Shedding Light on Innovation
    http://www.spectralclass.com/



MTC-00024738

From: Eric Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it concerns:
    I understand you're soliciting feedback on the proposed 
``Microsoft Settlement''. I have

[[Page 27527]]

not read the settlement. What I know about it has come from 
television, radio and print media. From what I know of the proposed 
settlement, I share the concern expressed by those who believe that 
if Microsoft is allowed to provide that quantity of hardware and 
software to schools, this may unfairly expand Microsoft's market 
share in an area they are not presently dominating.
    I believe there is a simple answer to this concern. Take the 
dollar value of the hardware and software that Microsoft will 
donate, and allow the recipients to choose what hardware and/or 
software they prefer to work with. This suggestion likely tacks on 
some administrative cost, but if Microsoft really wants to be fair, 
they should not be opposed to it, and should be willing to re-
negotiate the deal to reflect this approach. Even if it costs them 
more money.
    That's my opinion.
    God bless America.
    Eric D. Anderson
    653 4th St. N.
    Hudson, WI 54016-1051



MTC-00024739

From: Ross Kinzler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement for the following reasons: a) 
The proposed settlement provides for no monetary payments by 
Microsoft. b) The term of the agreement is limited to 5 years and it 
should provide for a permanent injunction.
    Ross Kinzler
    Executive Director
    Wisconsin Manufactured Housing Association



MTC-00024740

From: mpreul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft needs to be broken up--come on government get 
with it. Making the operating system and the software to run on it 
is just plain not fair. I read somewhere that this is akin to a 
situation wherein the post office would be the only one selling the 
letters and boxes, and then sells the stamps to send them. But this 
is not right-- what Microsoft has is the not just the letters 
and boxes, they're the only ones with the secret to making paper and 
cardboard and the right to sell the letters and boxes, and the 
stamps to run on them. This is more like if GM were the only ones to 
build cars, and that in order to run at over 30 mph, you had to buy 
gasoline produced by GM--this just is not fair. Our computer 
wrold will not fall because of Microsoft's break up--this will 
allow entrepreneurs to step into the gap.
    Take Microsoft apart!!
    Mark Preul
    8628 E. Davenport Dr.
    Scottsdale, AZ 85260



MTC-00024741

From: Richard Gorton
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (it is a joke)
    Sirs,
    The proposed anti-trust settlement with microsoft is, as far as 
I can ascertain, a joke. The terms are so vague as to be completely 
ineffective. The harshest penalty possible appears (to my reading) 
to be: ``You were bad. Since you were bad, we're going to watch 
you longer to see if you are bad some more''. As for the terms, 
I was able to come up ways to completely nullify/circumvent a couple 
of them with only a few minutes of thought. And that's without being 
an attorney. Personally, I believe a much more effective way to halt 
Microsoft's continued traditional predatory behavior is to break 
them up, into a minimum of three groups, and to put chinese walls 
between them.
    Regards,
    Richard Gorton (for myself)
    161 Temple St.
    Framingham, MA 01701



MTC-00024743

From: Steve Steele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please DO NOT allow Microsoft to ``give away'' 
software licenses to schools. Please make them instead give money to 
an independent third party institution that will act as a fund for 
school systems to purchase the computer systems of their own choice. 
Allowing them to give away or donate the Windows OS will just allow 
them to become a bigger monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Steele
    Systems Admin.
    Rice University



MTC-00024744

From: Ben Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:58pm
Subject: Re: Public comments ending soon in MS/States settlement
    Please do something to make sure that Microsof cannot just walk 
away from this with their stock two dollars off the mark for a 
couple of months. I have been in the technology sector for more than 
seven years and everytime they have encroached on a technology it 
has turned out to completely stagnate the said area of development. 
If there was one instance of Microsoft not trying to completely 
control whatever they touched it would be one thing but I have yet 
to see a technology that they have not stolen and changed 10% only 
to then call their own. Thier OS, Web browser, Office Suite, Email 
products, Hotmail, MSN, and most especialy their media player have 
all been from reverse engineering of other company products. Because 
of the nature of the business they have the advantage of throwing 
quaduple the amount of people onto a product to meet the release 
date of any other company. Although this may not be entirely illegal 
it does say something about their ethics when it comes to how they 
interact with others. Never have they released or created an open 
sourced standard or given people access to products without tying 
three more of their services into it. If this is not using a 
Monopoly to encroach into existing markets, I don't know what is. 
And when I speak of this I do not mean Windows 95 but of thier 
Operating System released after they were found guilty of 
Monopolistic practices.
    Thank you for taking the time to recieve this letter of concern 
and I hope a just resolution is found.
    Sincerely,
    Ben Hall
    Media Developer, Fallon Inc.
    612.758.2131



MTC-00024745

From: Walt Asher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the 
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust 
case. I am just an ordinary user. I am not a computer guru even 
though I did build my first computer from a Heathkit. I generally 
like the Microsoft Windows operating system, however, I did not like 
the way they have forced people to use their other products. 
Microsoft had seems to have pushed computer manufactures to include 
a wide range of their products. As a result so many people use 
Microsoft Office only because it was included as a free program with 
the computer when they purchased it. That is ceratinly unfair. I 
have been useing Corel WordPerfect for several years and found it 
far better than Microsoft Word, yet few people use it and even fewer 
computer manufactures include it.
    Another complaint I have is that I am forced to accept Microsoft 
products that I don't need because Microsoft includes them as part 
of the operating system. Intenet Explorer is a perfect example. I do 
not like and do not use Internet Explorer, yet it has to be 
installed on my system. I am not computer literate enough to remove 
it without causing problems to the operating system. Microsoft could 
sell a version without Internet Explorer very easily. I am of the 
strong opinion that Microsoft should be forced to sell the striped 
down version ONLY. Anyone wanting Internet Explorer, or any other 
Microsoft product, should be be required to make an effort to obtain 
that product just is they must do now for Netscape, WordPerfect, 
etc. When that happens, the market will decide which products are 
used by businesses and individuals.
    One final remedy which I strongly believe should be implemented 
is that Microsoft should be required to reveal how its other 
programs are integrated with the operating system. This would allow 
other software manufactures to make the use of their products 
interface with and convient to use as Microsoft now does with their 
products. These things would make Microsoft windows and stand alone 
product for the benefit of everyone. It will open the doors to fair 
competition and allows the markey to decide what it wants rather 
than having Microsoft decide so they can increase the profits and 
shut out everyone else. I have not problem with Micrsoft making tons 
of money. I object to being forced to give them my money for 
products I don't like and don't use just because they have to power 
to do so.

[[Page 27528]]

    Thank you,
    Walter W. Asher
    766 West Key Rd
    Troy, TN 38260-4442
    (731) 536-5146



MTC-00024746

From: aaron matthew croyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the proposed settlement gives Microsoft too much room to 
violate the proposal's intention.
--Aaron Croyle



MTC-00024747

From: Lupe Anguiano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:00pm
Subject: Consumer Protection
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    I a Latina Technology and Fundraising Consultant. I advice and 
recommend use of Technology products to education, non-profit 
organizations and small start-up Latino Businesses in Southern 
California-- mostly in the Los Angeles and Ventura County area. 
When I add (via basic math) and compare the cost of Microsoft 
products with AOL, Oracle and others--my adding machine shows 
great savings purchasing Microsoft products vs. other products. The 
time for TRUTH has arrived--Why is the Government using tax 
payers money (my check shows I contribute 40% of my earnings to my 
Government--Federal and California) to market the products of 
Technology Companies whom buyers do not purchase from? Why is 
Government interfering with our FREE MARKET--WHY IS GOVERNMENT 
INFLUENCING THE CHOICE OF CONSUMERS. WHY IS GOVERNMENT MARKETING 
HIGHER PRICES. Government has failed to produce an honest consumer 
related argument against Microsoft. I am so tired of this entire 
false word game played by lawyers especially from States who refuse 
to settle with Microsoft. Has Government asked the 
question--``Is what we are doing hindering the growth and 
development of the Technology Industry?'' We are living in 
difficult economic times--our Technology Industry needs to be 
free to grow and innovate in both our Country and in the 
World--If free to be creative Technology can be a tool to 
improve peoples lives--not only in the USA but in the World.
    I hope what I have written is taken seriously, it comes from a 
struggling consumer--who is barely making ends meet.
    Respectfully,
    Lupe Anguiano
    Lupe Anguiano & Associates, Inc.
    14420 Kittridge St. #220
    Van Nuys, CA 91405-5109
    Phone: 818.787.8807
    Fax: 818.787.8911
    [email protected]



MTC-00024748

From: Susie Koester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement ->
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the 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.
    Sincerely,
    Susan Koester



MTC-00024749

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
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

[[Page 27529]]

seen. Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    RUBIE C. CARTER
    1464 KEELER.DR.
    IRVING, TX 75060-2640



MTC-00024750

From: Jack, Jeremy C
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is a sad, sad thing to see a government organization being 
purchased wholesale. The fact that the justice department is part of 
the American government makes me profoundly embarassed. In an 
environment which actually supports the DMCA, however, I suppose 
this is inevitable. Since Microsoft has made it very clear it does 
not intend to stop exploiting consumers, the channel, or 
manufacturers and was willing to boldly and obviously lie in court, 
and yet has received what amounts to substantially less than a slap 
on the wrists is truly truly tragic. There is little justice to be 
found here. Money has spoken far louder.
--Jeremy C. Jack // The thoughts, opinions, and facts stated 
here are mine alone and not related to Intel or its affiliates.
    neutiquam erro



MTC-00024751

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my voice in opposition to the federal 
government's givaway to the Microsoft Corporation. While the 
provision that stops Microsoft from forcing OEMs from producing 
systems that run alternative operating systems is a step forward, 
the rest of the agreement will more than likely prove to be 
unenforceable. You are essentially rewarding Microsoft for abusing 
its monopoly and encouraging it to engage in more anti-competitive 
behavior. We can see that the company has wasted no time in using 
its monopoly power to drive more competitors from the market by the 
latest version of Windows.
    Owning Soldier Field does not give the Chicago Bears the right 
to build retractable concrete posts in the endzone to prevent the 
other team from scoring.



MTC-00024752

From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Ed Teller
Microsoft ATR
1/25/02 3:02pm
    Microsoft Suit
    Please see attached letter!
    THANKS,
    Ed Teller
    EMAIL: [email protected]



MTC-00024752-0001

Wilson E. Teller
3148 Pine Road
Orange Park, FL 32065
January, 25,2002
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As an active member of my community and an avid supporter and 
user of Microsoft products, I feel I must take a moment of my time 
in order to voice what I feel is in the best interest of the 
American people.
    Microsoft has done more for the IT world than any other company 
in history, and as a firm believer in the American ethic of everyone 
having the opportunity to prosper, I believe Microsoft, under the 
stated settlement plan, has the right to rid itself of any further 
legal action. The use of the valuable time and money of the American 
people has been spent for three long years in this case, long enough 
for a settlement to be reached.
    The settlement would require Microsoft to undergo various 
changes that further open the gates of competition to new and 
struggling IT companies. The thrust of the Justice Department's 
case, that Microsoft used unfair business practices, has now been 
addressed. The American people deserve to benefit from new 
innovations in computer software, not just for the sake of the 
economy, but also to keep American businesses at the head of the 
pack in the global market.
    In your capacity as attorney general, I hope you will speak on 
behalf of the consumer and tax payer, who want to see Microsoft get 
back to what it does best: serving the people with manageable, 
affordable, and innovative computer software.
    Thank you for your time and consideration in this crucial 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    Wilson E. Teller



MTC-00024753

From: Gina Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a really bad idea, Microsoft is a 
bunch of crooks, they need to pay for what they have done!!
    Gina L. Erickson
    137 Fir Street
    Camarillo, CA 93010



MTC-00024754

From: Andy McKee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is fair and just; however there are concerns that 
arise from this action.
    (1) If agreed upon, what safeguards would be in place to prevent 
a repeat of this case under another administration or even a 
different market.
    (2) Would could be the long term solution not to just Microsoft, 
but others in the information industry?
    (3) Would this stop the process or would it just keep on going 
every time a judge feels differently.



MTC-00024755

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:00pm
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,
    vincent laconis
    1006 22nd ave
    vero beach, FL 32960



MTC-00024756

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad 
idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
    Vernon Guilford



MTC-00024757

From: todd ferguson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I feel that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust 
case will not be effective in combating the illegal practices of the 
company. Furthermore, I feel that the real issues of Microsoft's 
illegal activities have yet to be addressed. I mainly object on 
these three points:
    (1) They have used their monopoly to push around computer 
manufacturers, thus forcing competing operating system (OS) makers 
out of business, and keeping other operating systems to an extremely 
marginal market share.
    (2) They keep their file formats (especially 
``Office'' formats) closed, making it harder for other 
applications to gain a foothold in the market.
    (3) They keep their application programming interface (API) for 
Windows secret, making it more difficult to compete against them.
    I am a user of several alternative operating systems. Thus far, 
no other OS's have been able to gain market penetration to a 
substantial degree.
    This is largely due to Microsoft's restrictions upon, and 
threats against computer manufacturers. In one publicly disclosed 
incident, the company Hitachi was ready to ship computers that could 
boot into either Microsoft Windows or the Be Operating System. When 
Microsoft heard

[[Page 27530]]

about this, they threatened Hitachi by saying they would revoke 
their license to sell Windows on their computer systems. Faced with 
losing the ability to pre-install the most widely used OS on their 
computers, Hitachi chose to remove the ability to boot into the BeOS 
from their computers. People are much more likely to use an OS if it 
come with their computer. Because people have not been able to get 
computers with both Windows and other alternative OS's installed, 
Microsoft has managed to maintain its grip on the OS market.
    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 lease 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.
    Sincerely,
    Todd Louis Ferguson ``We are the music makers, we are the 
dreamers of dreams.''
    Gene Wilder, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory



MTC-00024758

From:
To:
Date:
Subject: 
Roger Allen
Microsoft ATR
1/25/02 3:03pm
Microsoft Settlement
    Okeechobee, FL 34974<>
    January 24, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support of the recent antitrust case 
settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. While 
I think that the lawsuits have dragged on too long I am happy to see 
a possible ending and that Microsoft will not be broken up. Under 
the terms of the settlement Microsoft will be increasing it 
relations with computer makers and software developers, not 
retaliating against competitors who develop or promote non-Microsoft 
products, licensing its Windows operating system to the 20 largest 
computer makers on identical terms and conditions, and forming a 
three-person team to monitor compliance with the settlement. The 
terms are fair and should appease all parties involved in the 
dispute. 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.<> ......
    Please implement the settlement as soon as possible and 
reprimand the 9 states that are holding out. Thank you for 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 Allen
    15 Montica Drive
    Pueblo, CO 81005
    00024758--0002



MTC-00024759

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get this settlement finalized! Microsoft is NOT the 
consumers s enemy.



MTC-00024760

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 25, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
RE: U.S. v. Microsoft
    OVERVIEW
    For more than three years Microsoft has been defending itself in 
antitrust litigation brought by the U.S. Justice Department and 
eighteen states, including Ohio. The proposed consent decree between 
Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice reflects a settlement, 
which adequately protects the interests of the Department of 
Justice, the states and Microsoft, while achieving the desired goal 
of consumer protection. UNCLEAR BASIS FOR ANTITRUST ACTION AGAINST 
MICROSOFT Many critics, including the Buckeye Institute (Ohio's free 
market think tank) questioned the Justice Department's use of 
antitrust laws against Microsoft to punish the company's innovative 
use of technology, which provided useful products to businesses and 
individuals at low prices. The involvement of the state attorneys 
general was even more puzzling. It has never been clear how Ohio's 
citizens have been in any way harmed by Microsoft's business 
practices. The only clear beneficiaries to this antitrust case are 
Microsoft's competitors who prefer to have Microsoft mired in 
litigation instead of competing in the marketplace.
    IMPLICATIONS FOR ANTITRUST LAW IN THE DYNAMIC TECHNOLOGY 
MARKETPLACE
    This case calls into question the relevancy of antitrust laws in 
the fast-changing technology marketplace of today. One of the main 
reasons for the government's case was to ensure competition in 
Internet browsers. However, within several months of commencement of 
the case, the marketplace changed dramatically.
    Microsoft's core business--writing the operating systems of 
personal computers--is under serious challenge from Linux and 
Apple. The center of gravity for computing is shifting away from the 
personal computer, where Microsoft has a significant presence, onto 
the Internet where the conglomerate AOL-Time Warner is the major 
player. As technology progresses, the focus will likely move to 
personal digital assistants, web-enabled telephones, satellite-based 
communication devices, and other tools.
    The litigation against Microsoft sent a message to the rest of 
the technology economy that the use of innovation to meet consumer 
demands in an efficient manner will be punished by government 
agencies in the courts. This message sent shock waves throughout the 
American economy and hurt development in the technology sector.
    EFFECT ON OHIOANS
    The value of Microsoft stock tumbled by nearly 40% as the case 
dragged on. The more than 100,000 Microsoft shareholders that reside 
in Ohio collectively lost millions. And that does not include those 
investors who hold Microsoft stock in their mutual or pension funds. 
Other smaller technology company stocks fared even worse.
    BREAK-UP OF MICROSOFT WOULD WEAKEN ECONOMY AND HURT CONSUMERS
    The Buckeye Institute has publicly commended Ohio Attorney 
General Betty Montgomery, who has been involved with the case from a 
very early stage, for her support of the settlement and resistance 
to pursuing the break-up of Microsoft. She recognized that breaking 
up Microsoft would weaken our already slow economy, hurt consumers, 
and set a bad precedent effectively discouraging other high tech 
firms from investing in innovation and creativity.
    SETTLEMENT MEETS GOALS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION WHILE PERMITTING 
CONTINUED INNOVATION IN THE MARKETPLACE
    For those who have concerns about Microsoft's business 
practices, the settlement contains significant rules and regulations 
on how Microsoft designs, develops, and

[[Page 27531]]

licenses its software. For example, all new Microsoft operating 
systems would have to include a mechanism that allows easier removal 
of the Microsoft Internet browser to switch to a different browser.
    Importantly, however, this settlement will still allow 
Microsoft, which has been a lead engine of the American economy over 
the last decade, to focus on innovation and productivity instead of 
on defending itself from government attacks in the courts.
    The proposed settlement satisfies the Justice Department and 
nine of the states that joined in the antitrust action. It adds 
consumer protections while permitting Microsoft to a responsible 
industry leader. In the long run, Microsoft's continued ability to 
innovate and create products that meet marketplace demands is the 
real benefit to consumers.
    Sincerely,
    David J. Owsiany, J.D.
    President
    The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions
    4100 North High Street
    Suite 200
    Columbus, Ohio 43214
    Phone: (614) 262-1593
    Fax: (614) 262-1927
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00024761

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly endorse the current settlement.



MTC-00024762

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Giving away software as a freebie to a purchaser is hardly 
creating a monopoly. This sales tactic is used all the time by 
thousands of vendors cash rebates Hawaii vacations etc. are all used 
to vendor advantage. This should force the competitor to build a 
better product--not to sue the givers of incentives to 
consumers. In a country where we have three corporations controlling 
80% of all cereal grains 80% of all red meats 90% of poultry with NO 
freebies to consumers and only an occasional price discount why do 
you pick Microsoft to prosecute? Coca Cola and Pepsi actually 
conspire to keep smaller brands OFF vendor shelves. We have some 
really bad monopolies in the U.S. that are gouging consumers 
horribly on a necessity of life [food] yet you choose to ignore 
their greed and go after a company that has enabled consumers to 
take part in the communications boom. Why?



MTC-00024763

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has a monopoly on personnel and business software that 
is costing this Country and economy excessively and more open 
competitiveness is required.



MTC-00024764

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is fair and will finally end this lengthy and 
costly suit. Both the national economy and the local economy here in 
the Northwest will benefit from this settlement. The bottom line is 
that this is in the best interests of the consumer and is vital to 
the health of the tech industry and the economy as a whole.



MTC-00024765

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It s a sad day when innovation and success have to be hobbled by 
the government just because some some people just can't keep up with 
the needs of the consumer.



MTC-00024766

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First off I want to congratulate Bill Gates and Microsoft for 
all they have accomplished what he has done with his company is 
truely the american dream. I also want whomever this concerns to 
know I am tired of my tax dollars paying for a lawsuit that simply 
put was initiated by a bunch of sore losers. I do realize that our 
great countries laws protect against market monopolies but when it 
happens do we have to treat them as though they are being punished? 
The fact is Microsoft has accomplished what every company wishes 
they can complete domination with a quality product. If any other 
company (Apple AOL & Netscape etc. . .) had the chance they 
would have done the same. The point is they could not and cannot 
achieve this so they start pointing fingers and by pointing fingers 
they openly admit to an inferior product. I am more than capable of 
installing different products on my Windows systems but I choose not 
to because I prefer Microsofts products. If the government splits 
Microsoft or makes them exclude some of the components of the 
operating system it will actually make Microsoft s market larger 
because people like me will still buy the seperated components which 
will probably cost more and hurt the consumer that the government 
was trying to protect in the first place.



MTC-00024767

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    William Bicknell
    35-17 Ditmars Blvd
    #113
    Astoria, NY 11105



MTC-00024768

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Any corrective measures must be weighed against the well-being 
of consumers. In fact the very monopolistic practices for which 
Microsoft has been criticized were BENEFICIAL to consumers because 
they provided a standard platform that all application developers 
can depend on. The result? More reliable application software (=less 
frustration for consumers). The proposed settlement seems to me to 
prevent future abuses while protecting consumer rights. We should go 
forward with it.



MTC-00024769

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've been using Microsoft products for almost 20 years. Never 
any problems. Never been pressured to use their products did it by 
CHOICE as it should be. Govt. should stay out of this and let the 
public decide what products they prefer to use. McNeely and Ellison 
are simply unable to compete so they are crying to the Govt. for 
help. Let the users decide what products they want to use ! ! ! !



MTC-00024770

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    leave ms alone



MTC-00024771

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft was found guilty of monopolistic practices. Enron was 
on the edge of accounting rules Microsoft went over the edge in 
dealing with competitors and PC manufacturerers. They are delaying a 
just penalty. They offer to give $1 Billion in software to schools. 
In 1969 one of the issues in the antitrust case against IBM was that 
they were selling or giving away computers to Universities. 
Microsoft has the chutzpah to say this is a good deed when it is 
nothing more than a marketing ploy to get into k-12

[[Page 27532]]

schools. The bundling of Internet Explorer into Windows without 
permitting PC manufacturers from deleting it was a predatory action 
against Netscape. When a powerful company offers something free that 
competes with a product or service of a small company that is 
predatory. When it looks like a skunk and smells like a skunk it s a 
skunk.



MTC-00024772

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government s (at the behest of Netscape and others) 
continued pursuit of the case against Microsoft is an outrage. I use 
Microsoft s products every single day. Not because I am forced to by 
a monopoly or other pressures but because they make quality 
software. Given the choice between a Microsoft product and another 
company s I'll almost always choose Microsoft s. Building a browser 
(or any other functionality) into their operating system is 
convenient for consumers. And I can load Netscape s browser (or any 
other software) onto my computer any time I like. I just choose not 
to. Microsoft should be allowed to incorporate any additional 
features they choose.



MTC-00024773

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel very strongly that the settlement is fair and just. I 
also feel that those that do not think so are driven by competative 
motives that are not in the interest of those that use technology on 
a daily basis. I use MS products but do not feel that I have to use 
them and do use other products that compete with MS products. In no 
way do I feel that I am hindered as a consumer due to MS s business 
practices if there is a better product out there I will purchase it 
to run my business.



MTC-00024774

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in support of this settlement just because I want the 
matter to go away. Let s close the book on this issue and let the 
market decide who the winners and loosers not the government or 
states. This is a free market society and governments and states 
have no business or knowledge about technology.
    We spend too much time in litigation and not much time left for 
innovation and progress. All this cost tax payers millions of 
dollars for nothing only politicians and lawers got rich from it. I 
WANT MY TAX DOLLARS TO BE USED FOR SOMETHING MORE USEFULL (AND THIS 
LITIGATION IS CERTAINLY NOT USEFULL) OR GIVE ME MY TAX MONEY BACK.



MTC-00024775

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have purchased and used Microsoft software for over 15 years. 
I have tried others and always came back to Microsoft. I do not 
believe that other companies should be given the technology that 
Microsfot designed. Let these other companies come up with their 
own. Too much money has been spent punishing a company that was only 
carrying out the idea of free enterprise. I suggest that more time 
be spent on matters that will protect us as individuals from 
something serious.
    Respectfully submitted
    D. Carroll Brackett



MTC-00024776

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    At this time in the United States it would seem that going back 
to business as usual would be the obvious choice. I agree. I think 
that this settlement although at times unfair to microsoft is better 
than prolonged litigation. As a consumer I have to say that I was 
happy to get a free web-browser from microsoft so have no sympathy 
for netscape s old practices. This settlement should stand and as 
American corporations the competitors of Microsoft who are really 
the interested parties should strive to win in the marketplace not 
the courtroom.



MTC-00024777

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a senior citizen and great grandmother I m appalled that this 
Microsoft case was ever accepted by the courts in the first place. I 
will NEVER do business with those companies who filed against 
Microsoft and have personally deleted AOL and any product of the 
complaintives out of my computer. Please accept the settlement on 
behalf of all the consumers who were never injured in the first 
place with the browser.
    Best wishes and thank you
    June M. Allen



MTC-00024778

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The expansion of OS services beginning with the inclusion of 
TCP/IP to Win95 has been a significant boon to consumers. The 
Internet explosion occurred with the release of free browsers to the 
public which financed their invention at the University of Illinois. 
The concept that the public was harmed by MSFT giving away the 
browser it originally purchased from the copyright holders mocks any 
standard of fairness.



MTC-00024779

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough!!!!!!!! The first suit was ridiculous now with 
the AOL suit it is getting out of control. Find another golden 
goose. Microsoft and the US economy as a whole have suffered 
enough!!! The justice department netscape and AOL should have to 
reimburse everybody hurt through this.



MTC-00024780

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the proposed Final Judgement to be deficient in several 
areas, especially when compared to how like behavior would be 
treated if the defendent were an actual person.
    Section III.C.4 does not prohibit Microsoft from requiring a 
Microsoft Operating System be installed or sold on/with any system 
containing an alternative Operating System. Nor is this behavior 
prohibited by section III.G.1.
    Section III.D is a closed forum. An open forum modeled perhaps 
after that of the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) should be 
used to ensure everyone has access. The purpose of this section is 
to enhance competition. Anyone who is for competition should not be 
against a little more. Section III.E is also a closed forum. 
Communication Protocols should be published and should be 
standardized outside of Microsoft. Internet protocols MUST be 
standardized via the RFC processes within the IETF.
    Section III.G.1 is too weak to keep Microsoft from returning to 
prior practices. The words `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'' should be struck.
    Section III.J.2 should include more than just commercial 
products. APIs should be available without cost to anyone who has an 
interest, whether as a hobby or as a business. This is a market 
economy. If someone wants to do something for free, they should be 
able to. By limiting access to crucial APIs and protocols to only 
people and entities which can demonstrate that they will profit from 
the knowledge, the market has not been significantly opened up. Many 
innovations, to borrow a term that has been bastardized by 
Microsoft, come from people toying around with ideas and not trying 
to make a profit.
    By not punishing Microsoft in any significant way, Microsoft, 
and indeed the world, has learned that to be a success means to 
break the law big and quick, make a lot of money, and contribute to 
political parties when you get caught so no one will steal the lunch 
money from the bully. Enron is making good on this at the moment as 
well.
    In most drug-related cases, the defendent's money is seized 
before being found to have commited a crime because the money is 
from illegal behavior, as defined by the prosecution and the police. 
If that can be done before the case has ever seen a court room, then 
how much easier must it be to

[[Page 27533]]

remove money from Microsoft who has already been proven to have 
broken the law. Microsoft should pay damages in some multiple of $10 
billion. Money is all that companies care about--their bottom 
line--their reason de etre. Everything else in any judgement is 
just window dressing and will be lived with.
    The Justice Department has an opportunity to help the consumer, 
but the President has an opportunity to help his constituency. I 
pray the Justice Department will prevail.
    James [email protected]/
    http://www.jamesmith.com/
    [email protected] http://cis.tamu.edu/systems/
opensystems/
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00024781

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Keep settlement as it is



MTC-00024782

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The remaining State CIO s have a political agenda to help prop 
up Microsoft s competitors. Microsoft has done a great service by 
building a huge industry in the United States. Microsoft has helped 
consumers by bringing low cost computing to all of them. The very 
competitors who are complaining about Microsoft have done nothing to 
lower their prices to bring more power to consumers except in 
response to Microsoft s low prices.
    Bob Jones



MTC-00024783

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We are very much in favor for the goverment and Microsoft to 
settle. Microsoft has done more for the world in PC computer use 
than any other company. The continous lawsuits by the 12 states and 
others is nothing more than to extract money for both the lawyers 
and the states. Go after the types of Enron and accounting firms 
that would do a lot more good for the public.
    Sinserely
    Josef Ressel



MTC-00024784

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a Microsoft product consumer would someone please tell me 
where I have been harmed?????? There are 75 people DEAD as the 
result of Firestone tires and not near the attention or dollars have 
been spent on investigating that issue. Yet taxpayers dollars at the 
prodding of Microsoft competitors continue to be misspent!!!!!



MTC-00024785

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not punish Microsoft for being forsighted and 
innovative. They are wonderful. They have made my job so much 
easier. I can troubleshoot so easily with their products and they 
integrate seamlessly. This is a waste of taxpayer money and of 
Microsoft s funds. We the consumer are the ones that will ulimately 
pay the price. Stop the insanity.



MTC-00024786

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a taxpayer and consumer I believe that the recent law suit 
filed by AOL/Time Warner against Microsoft is an indication that AOL 
and other Microsoft competitors are using antitrust law as part of 
their business strategy to compete against Microsoft s products. I 
do not believe that sanctions against Microsoft will benefit 
consumers in any way.



MTC-00024787

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern It is my opinion that the antirust suit 
brought against the Microsoft Corporation is unfair. I fear it is 
motivated by business interestes rather than the interests of the 
consumer--which is why antitrust laws were created. I ve worked 
for 2 years in the Internet industry where I ve learned firsthand 
why Microsoft dominates the various markets it competes 
in--their products are superior to the competition. In our 
society a superior product is rewarded with profit. Please do not 
penalize a company that makes quality products because of anti-big 
business propaganda born in the Public Relations departments of 
Microsoft s jealous competitors.
    Thank you.
    Scott



MTC-00024788

From: Andrew Frank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Like most other companies involved in the IT industry, I have 
not experienced any particular problem directly attributable to the 
rather inflammatory litigation involving Microsoft and our 
government. Our concerns, like most other businesses, center more 
around concerns of our country's softening economic picture than 
anything else. That having been said, however, is not to suggest 
that had this lawsuit continued to its anticipated bitter end, its 
result would not have complicated the business picture for most IT 
companies one way or another. It is better for our country and the 
IT business that this lawsuit has been removed from the contentious 
battlefield of the courts and has instead been relegated to a 
settlement. This settlement addresses the issues raised by the court 
action and serves as a quieter, less factious way to conclude this 
matter to everyone's satisfaction. It quietly shifts the onus of 
licensing Windows from individual OEMs to a collective of the top 
twenty hardware manufacturers. It also subtly forces changes in the 
way Microsoft designs Windows to accommodate software companies.
    I am very much supportive of the settlement, and am hoping that 
with its acceptance, we can all benefit from being able to move 
forward.
    Sincerely,
    Andy Frank
    Andrew K. Frank, PhD
    Vice President & General Manager
    The Training Camp
    1812 Marsh Road, Suite 200
    Wilmington, DE 19810
    1.302.475.0283--phone
    1.302.475.1571--fax
    [email protected]
    Visit our website at http://www.trainingcamp.net/
    ``Because you are only as good as what you know''



MTC-00024789

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft must be stopped from using its vast predatory powers. 
There must be NO settlement until this out of control corporation is 
held accountable for its monopolositic practices. Instead of giving 
its vastly inferior operating systems to schools it should be made 
to supply Linux. To do otherwise only allows this monopoly to grow.



MTC-00024790

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    What mankind really needs is a break from people like Orin Hatch 
and Sun Microsystems CEO Scott G. Mc-Nealy who complain about 
Microsoft. None has bothered to offer a superior product. Instead 
they have used the government as a strategic weapon to cover their 
own inability to develop something better.
    The time has long since past for people like Orin Hatch and the 
government to leave Microsoft alone!!!
    Douglas Shortridge
    117 Cameron Dr.
    Battle Creek Mi. 49015



MTC-00024793

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time for companies to quit using the federal government 
and the judicial process because they can t compete. The computer 
industry is one of the strongest most profitiable industries in the 
world. Government interfernce at this point in its

[[Page 27534]]

history is premature and damaging. Please focus your efforts on 
problems with the telecom industry and leave the computer industry 
alone. We don t need your help.



MTC-00024794

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the settlement reached by the govt is fair and 
equittable.In my opinion Microsoft has been picked on for being an 
sucessful co.I dont see any monopolistic behaviour.Its time to move 
on and stop wasting tax payer money.



MTC-00024795

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It time tell the friends of Sen. Hatch and the other parties to 
beat Microsoft in the marketplace and quit trying to use the 
Goverment and the courts. It is my place as a consumer to pick and 
chose the best products not the courts. Let us pick the winner not 
the Goverment !!!!!!!



MTC-00024796

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    THE ONLY REASON RENO (CLINTON) BROUGHT CHARGES WAS BECAUSE BILL 
GATES DIDN T GIVE MONEY TO EITHER PARTY. I FEEL THAT ALL CHARGES 
SHOULD BE DROPPED.



MTC-00024797

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough of this attack on one of our most respected companies 
Microsoft. We expected as much from the previous administration but 
did not expect the witch hunt to continue in the Bush 
Administration. Our portfolio has been negatively affected by the 
Clinton Justice Department s attack on MS. Stop it now and get back 
to catching real crooks.



MTC-00024798

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It s time to get off Microsoft s back. This garbage revolves 
around a FREE software bundle and a lot of us can see right through 
the whining about it. THis is really a message that the government 
will enable anyone to go after successful capitalists and it s a 
lousy grab for power. Get over it.



MTC-00024799

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Bill Gates is just a man in business like anybody else and he 
came up with a product that s been aggressively marketed and perhaps 
better than anything else like it. Why should someone or a company 
be faulted for being better and more successfull than anyone else 
provided that they are being ethical about it.



MTC-00024800

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Can you imagine what life would be like without the computer? 
How advanced do you think the world would be in computer usage if 
Bill Gates and Microsoft never existed. Bill Gates should be 
recognized at the man of the 20th century that has done so much for 
not only the USA bu the whole world. Other companies are already 
benefitting from Microsoft s taking risks in the 80s and its pool of 
ingenuity and software dominance. Don t punish people for being 
successful except in the income taxes they pay. All branches of 
government city county state and federal have benefitted from the 
taxes Microsoft and its employees have paid. Don t stifle new 
inventions and software.



MTC-00024801

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We founded this country on the belief of free enterprize and 
freedom to compete in open markets. When a company like Microsoft 
does this too well everyone jumps in and forces the government to 
save them. The truth is that if other software manufacturers could 
put a product that worked as well as Windows we would be using it. 
Microsoft should have the right to do what it wants with a product 
that it created. The government nor the other software companys own 
windows Microsoft does. To tell them what they can and can t do with 
it is appalling to me.



MTC-00024802

From:
 [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am fully supportive of the settlement negotiated between 
Microsoft and the various Attorneys General referenced here. The 
uncertainty this case has caused the technology sector has had a 
strongly deleterious affect on the sector and the stock market and 
cosumers desperately need security that a final conclusive 
settlement will provide. Please effectuate the terms of the 
settlement with all due haste.
    Cordially C.
    Dodd Harris IV



MTC-00024803

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop this none-sence! It all started with Netscape and it 
was not a working system than nor is it much better now! It still 
works like the writer of that program(Netscape) has less than a year 
of experience. Also every PC that I have bought has always had 
Netscape loaded on it!!!!!!! They do not have a leg to stand on.



MTC-00024804

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the sttlement was unfair to Microsoft and is being 
inconsistently applied to computer vendors. There is nothing that MS 
did that companies complaining about MS have not also done. 
Indepenent of the question of fairness/rightness there is a blatent 
inconsistency being applied here. THIS IS CALL FREE ENTERPRISE! Not 
monopoly. The competitors are taking advantage of the justice system 
and polictical favortisum to make up for what they lack in their own 
product line and abilities. This inconsistency would be laughable if 
it were not for the serious ramification were MS forced to stopped 
providing the public with the best products it can. Please consider 
all factors in the light of free enterprise and consistent business 
practices of all competitors.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Kernaghan



MTC-00024805

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For too long the government has assisted Microsoft s 
competitors. It s time for them to compete in the marketplace not in 
the court room. The settlement proposed by DOJ is more than fair for 
all the parties involved and paves the way for a return to normalcy 
in the technology sector.



MTC-00024806

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the current settlement and avoid additional 
litigation. Thank you



MTC-00024807

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has provided great convenience for my life and our 
company s operation. Their products are so good and in the meantime 
I don t have problem to switch to their competitor s product if 
needed.
    However I will still prefer the Microsoft products. I don t see 
the monopoly. And I can only see the inconvenience by restriction of 
a pre-loaded Windows. I totally support the settlement. And I 
strongly suggest you that not let a few special interests person and 
not so great competitive competitor to ruin such a great company and 
their products.



MTC-00024808

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 27535]]

    Please accept this settlement and put this to bed. I believe 
this settlement is a fair (though tough) compromise that is in the 
best interest of everyone--the technology industry the economy 
and especially consumers. For the sake of the economy please use 
your influence to accept this settlement and allow Microsoft do what 
they do best develop and distribute integrated software.
    Sincerely Karen Hanshaw



MTC-00024809

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement with Microsoft is sufficient. Do not 
allow those companies who have an agenda other than innovation in 
the free market sway a fair decision.



MTC-00024810

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the seetlement reached on the Microsoft Case is more than 
fair and adequate and should be finalized.



MTC-00024811

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do the patriotic thing let Microsoft produce without 
further interference.



MTC-00024812

From: Todd Azzara
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe that the proposed settlement agreement is a bad idea, 
m'kay? No, really. There are no provisions for Microsoft documenting 
the API's they DO release, and there is very restricted third-party 
developer access to any API's, among many other items. Microsoft 
must be taken to task for its constant anti-competitive practices 
and this settlement WILL NOT accomplish anything.
    Thank you.
    Respectfully,
    Todd Azzara, Senior Real-Time Adaptor Developer
    EP1 Core Adaptor Team
    S1 Community and Regional eFinance Solutions Group
    12401 Research Blvd. Bldg. 1, Suite 400, Austin, TX 78759
    512.336.3000 x3032 / 512.336.3250 Fax
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00024813

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Darn it get on with this assinine case and accept the settlement 
completely NOW. Don t let the courts do to a successful and forward 
thinking company what they did to AT&T. If competing companies 
want a greater share of the market let them BUILD A BETTER MOUSE 
TRAP IF THEY CAN.



MTC-00024814

From: Patricia Abbott
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patricia Abbott
177 Hobble Creek Canyon
Springville, UT 84663
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,
    Patricia Abbott



MTC-00024815

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a user of both Microsoft and other products forcing Microsoft 
to submit to this sort of scrutiny is a waste of my tax dollars. 
Unlike the Baby Bells that seem to avoid all scrutiny like this 
Microsoft continues to provide BETTER products and BETTER service. 
Perhaps DOJ should focus on the real crooks like Enron.



MTC-00024816

From: Jera Darklighter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I believe that the proposed final judgment for the Microsoft 
settlement will not effectively eradicate the monopoly that 
Microsoft has on both middleware and PC operating systems.
    Firstly, there are several loopholes in the judgment that will 
easily allow Microsoft to keep on bundling middleware like Internet 
Explorer with Windows and thus keeping out competitors like Opera 
and Netscape. All they have to do is change the product number, and 
the judgment won't consider it ``middleware'' anymore. 
That is just asanine.
    Microsoft makes a lot of software that is the industry standard. 
However, it only runs on Windows (for PC platforms--of course 
they make it for the Mac too). This makes it really difficult for 
people who prefer other operating systems, like Linux, to run the 
programs they really need. These individuals, including myself, are 
``stuck'' using a product that they may feel is inferior 
to others available. This should not happen in an open market, where 
competition forces companies to make better products so they can 
have the largest market share.
    Furthermore, although the judgment does take some positive steps 
toward lessening Microsoft's monopoly, it does not adequately 
provide for enforcement of the judgment. Please give this judgment 
some teeth so the average Joe out here has a little choice when it 
comes to operating systems.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Jordana Kocher
    Senior Web Designer
    @MOTION, Inc.



MTC-00024817

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept this settlement. It is fair and in the best 
interest of everyone.
    Sincerely
    Crystal Shuey



MTC-00024818

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been opposed to the federal government s lawsuit against 
Microsft from the day it was filed. I have always thought it was a 
bad idea to punish a company for being successful in the 
marketplace. Worse it seemed as if the Justice Department was doing 
the work of Microsoft s competitors-- AOL Sun Oracle to name a 
few--for them primarily because they were losing in the 
marketplace. For that reason I support the proposed settlement with 
the government. The suit never should have been brought in the first 
place. If there s an opportunity to settle it we should do so 
ASAP--no more money time or energy invested in persecuting this 
successful company. I support the DoJ s efforts to settle and hope 
the Department will focus on prosecuting real criminals instead of 
manufacturing trumped-up cases against good corporate citizens. No 
more regulation via litigation please.
    Sincerely
    Douglas Goodyear



MTC-00024819

From: Mac.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am stockholder in Apple Computers. I am also an instructor of 
computer sciences at the college level in Tulsa, Oklahoma. As you

[[Page 27536]]

might expect the outcome of this trial is for most on my mind. I 
have been reviewing all related materials I can regarding this case 
since it's inception, and I am a firm believer that our computer 
experiences would be much better off if Microsoft where a better 
corporate and consumer partner.
    I have read the proposed settlement between MS, the DOJ, and 
nine states, and agree with many analysts who have said this 
settlement would do little to inhibit MS from continuing there 
previous behaviors.
    I feel that in order to allow free competition in the operating 
system market, Microsoft should not be allowed to bundle new 
software with there OS. To do so allows the company an unfair 
marketing advantage over competitors. Further, staple applications 
such as Microsoft Office should be available for all competing OS's 
with significant market share to warrant a profitable product. That 
would include the continuation of MS Office for Macintosh and the 
developing of MS Office for Linux.
    Lastly, MS should set specific prices for there products based 
upon volume and not based on the specific customer. In other words, 
if Compaq and Dell purchase an equal number of licenses then they 
should each pay the same price. This would prevent MS from bulling 
PC venders around based on the business practice of the particular 
vender.
    Joel Sutton
    Tulsa Community College
    (918) 595-7000 ext 7146



MTC-00024820

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft must be stopped--they are now spamming folks with 
requests for favorable comments on the settlement. Break Microsoft 
up stop them from making things even worse.



MTC-00024821

From:
 [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlment forces Microsoft to license any intellectual 
property rights that others might need to compete with Microsoft. I 
disagree with this penalty placed on Microsoft which has been placed 
on Microsoft not for the reason this case initially brought to trial 
but to penalize Microsoft for being the only company to successfully 
create an operating system for X86 platform. If the court is going 
to offer this appeal the appeal needs to be such that in ALL 
software developers will be forced to license their intellectual 
property rights. For example Sun Microsystems would have to license 
their intellectual property to Microsoft. Only in this sense will 
settlment truly offer something fair and justified.



MTC-00024822

From: Phil Tomson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act's provision for public comment I would like 
to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement.
    I have been involved in the computing industry as an engineer 
since 1984. For the last eight years I have been a software 
engineer. During this time I witnessed firsthand how the rise of 
Microsoft's monopoly in the operating system market adversly 
affected the software industry by limiting choices. Microsoft has 
been found guilty of anitcompetitive practices and illegally 
maintaining a monopoly. The proposed settlement effectively does 
nothing to stop Microsoft's anticompetitive practices and in fact I 
fear that it will actually give Microsoft the cover of legal 
authority to continue such practices in even greater amounts. If the 
proposed settlement is approved unchanged it will have grave 
negative consequences for the computing and software industries as 
well as for access to the Internet. These industries are key to the 
US economy and this settlement effectively hands them over to 
Microsoft.
    The proposed settlement could be fixed with the following 
requirements:
    * Require Microsoft to make it's office suite data file formats 
public. This would allow competing companies and organizations to 
create products which can interoperate with Microsoft's office 
suite, thus allowing competing operating systems to have 
applications which can read and write these formats which are now 
ubiquitous due to Microsotf's monopoly.
    * Require Microsoft to submit present and future (perhaps for a 
period of ten years) networking protocols to an independent open 
standards body. This would prevent Microsoft from creating 
incompatible netoworking protocols that would shut out competitor's 
access to the Internet.
    Require Microsoft's preload agreements to be vacated and 
prohibit the creation of new preload agreements.
    Require the Windows OS API (Application Programmer's Interface) 
to be publicly documented. This would allow the development of 
competing products that could interoperate with Windows. It would 
also expose certain portions of the API which Microsoft has kept 
secret up to this point. And this provision should apply to ALL 
versions of Windows, including Windows XP and WinCE (which are not 
covered in the current agreement).
    Require Microsoft to list which software patents protect the 
Windows API so that developers of Windows-compatible operating 
systems can determine what is patented and avoid infringing.
    Require that Microsoft change their EULAs to not discriminate 
against ISVs that distribute Open Source software. Many of Microsoft 
SDK (Software Development Kit) EULAs prohibit their use with Open 
Source (freely available under certain licenses like the GPL (GNU 
General Public License)). This type of discrimination should be 
eliminated.
    And finally, the current agreement appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. It does provide for the creation of a 
Technical Committee with investigative powers, but appears to leave 
all actual enforcement to the legal system. The agreement needs to 
be ammended so that it has an effective enforcement mechanism that 
is invoked when Microsoft breaks the agreement. This is a matter of 
utmost importance. If the current agreement is not changed, it will 
effectively hand over large portions of the computing industry and 
the Internet over to Microsoft's control--this would be a very 
tragic outcome and it is avoidable.
    Phil Tomson
    Software Engineer
    19310 SW Oak St.
    Aloha, OR 97007
    [email protected]



MTC-00024823

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Federal Government has been much too harsh on Microsoft. In 
the first place there never was a monopoly on Microsofts part. 
Everyone knows that anyone can and does write software. Nobody has 
or ever will have a monopoly on writing software. So there was no 
monopoly and the case should have been dismissed at that point. We 
who have invested our life savings in a very fine company like 
Microsoft now see the government destroying everything that we have 
worked so hard for. Every time lawyers and judges destroy investor 
confidence by actions such as this our economy our nation our 
investor spirit is weakened. It is small wonder that our economy is 
in such bad shape. Every time we consider investing in a particular 
company we become fearful of what the government may do to a fine 
company. We are supposed to be a free country. Microsoft certainly 
followed all the laws. So why punish them? Which companies are we to 
invest in if not fine companies like Microsoft? It sounds so much 
like the Democrats. Wait for someone to do well. Then become jealous 
and ask the government to destroy the company that you are jealous 
of.



MTC-00024824

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This judgement is a farce. Complete idiocy. Bad Microsoft! We 
order you to establish yourself in a market you do not already own 
and in fact one of your most dreaded compettiors DOES own as a 
PUNISHMENT. Oh yeah I m sure MS is cryin in their beer here. APPLE 
is the WELL KNOWN dominant educational platform and the judgement 
all but hands it to them on a silverplatter by REQUIRING THEM to 
become active in it s makeup. PUNISHMENT would be the m having to 
SUPPORT the ecucational systme by BUYING APPLES to put in schools. 
Is this justice? Hell no. It says long live monoploies becasue you 
ve just insured to get more of the same. More MS dominating every 
market and NOW the educational market as well wow some punishment. 
Good job buckwheat.

[[Page 27537]]

Hope you can salvage your soul from hell. Yay america. I sure hope 
the same jdges don t decide the terorrist s fates because they ll be 
sent to Club Med with explosives.



MTC-00024826

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the settlement of US Government s case with Microsoft. 
I think it is the best interest of consumers to let Microsoft get on 
with the business of making great software products. The state 
Attorney Generals are holding out for political reasons that are not 
in the consumer s best interest. Here in California the state AG is 
playing to the leaders in high-tech such as Larry Ellison of Oracle 
and Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems. What these men have been 
unable to achieve by consumer choice in the marketplace they wish to 
force on people using the strong-arm of the government. Sounds likes 
the mafia to me. Settle the case now.
    Shamus Brown



MTC-00024827

From: Stephen Nosal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:08pm
Subject: the microsoft settlement Folks--
    I would just like to express my displeasure with the proposed 
settlement with microsoft. I oppose it because it does not 
specifically address the issue of ``free'' software and 
volunteer development. If there is no specific language validating 
volunteer software developers I believe Microsoft will use a 
``viable business'' requirement to exclude these people 
from developing useful software. As a small business owner, I am 
unable to afford many of the products that microsoft sells--it 
comes directly off of my bottom line. Please modify this settlement 
to insure the rights of volunteer developers to create and release 
compatible software.
    Thank you for your time.
    Stephen Nosal
    mybrewpub.com
    New York, NY



MTC-00024828

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has done more than any other high technology company 
to build products for the people. Please bring this trial to an end 
as quickly as possible so that the industry can focus on serving the 
best interests of the American public and not a few of Microsoft s 
competitors. Settle now and move on.
    Thank you.



MTC-00024829

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I applaude the DOJ for willing to finally settle this ridiculous 
lawsuit with Microsoft. I believe that the market takes care through 
competition and hard work and this is what the American system is 
all about. Let the company do its business and keep the US as the 
most advanced country in the world and let the whiny competitors of 
Microsoft work to satisfy their customers by producing better 
products. It is after all customers who decide which products are 
the best.



MTC-00024830

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough stop wasteing money and settle case



MTC-00024831

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please put the Microsoft case to rest and approve the pending 
settlement. As a technology professional I have a great appreciation 
for the innovation and quality represented by Microsoft s software 
and don t want to see them impaired by intrusive government 
action-- action pushed by competitors who seek unfair advantage 
for their inferior products. I don t work for Microsoft nor have any 
ties to them I simply want the best tools to allow me to do my job 
and I believe that Microsoft provides them.



MTC-00024832

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The ruling between Microsoft and the States is extremely fair 
and should be allowed to stand. The economy can not take all this 
tearing down of American companies. Don t we still have something 
called capitalism?



MTC-00024833

From: Jon Bell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello, I strongly agree with the government's stance on this 
case against Microsoft. In the mid-90s, before this case was brought 
against MS, I read up on the subject quite a bit.
    I went from most people's opinion (``they found the 
american dream and now they're being punished'') to a more 
informed one. It's obvious that they've abused monopoly power, and 
it's obvious that it's hurt the market. They haven't necessarily 
harmed consumers, but abusing the monopoly power they have is bad 
enough to bring a case against them.
    I hope this case results in serious, measurable consequences for 
Microsoft. You have my support.
    Thanks,
    Jon



MTC-00024834

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Frank Roche
    393 West 49th St 5NN
    New York, NY 10019-7900



MTC-00024835

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    ETHEL PARKES
    1737 TIMSON LAME
    BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302



MTC-00024836

From: Brian Morton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a Macintosh and Linux user, with the exception of using 
Internet Explorer for OSX, I have read and listened to much of the 
commentary about the DOJ's settlement with Microsoft and it looks 
like you guys are selling out. We have seen Microsoft use it's 
monopoly status and greed to invade every market they enter, let us 
do the ``right thing'' and put a hurt on them. I think 
breaking them up as originally proposed would be a great solution 
and would then offer some real competition into the computing space.

[[Page 27538]]

    Brian Morton



MTC-00024837

From: FixIt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    bad idea guys



MTC-00024838

From: Jim Hassinger
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This disgraceful defanging of the court's decision will go down 
in history as a missed opportunity, brought about by the Bush 
administration's toadying to all sources of capital, from Microsoft 
to Enron.
    The original decision should have been executed, as a bare 
minimum. My views on the matter are neatly stated by Prof. Lawrence 
Lessig's recent work on related matter, ``The Future of 
Ideas.'' The Internet, in particular, must be saved as a truly 
neutral platform for development. If the government, and its 
eminently qualified scientists, were to continue actively supporting 
that rule, Microsoft would be forced to break up by the 
``free'' market created.
    Yours truly
    James Hassinger
    1149 Coronado Ter
    Los Angeles, CA 90026



MTC-00024839

From: Randy Ajax
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I believe the terms proposed under the Microsoft settlement to 
be just and fair for all parties.
    Thank you
    Randy Ajax
    President, Vending World
    Please visit our web site at:
    http://www.vendingworld.com



MTC-00024840

From: Michael R. Brumm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have reviewed the revised proposed final judgment for the USA 
and individual states against Microsoft.
    As an ISV who develops software for Windows, I feel that the 
proposal is more than fair.



MTC-00024841

From: Art
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement...
    Didn't Netscape give away it's browser in order to insure there 
would be no competition arise to compete with its'' product? If 
that's not anti-competetive, what is? If Microsoft with its'' 
deep pockets hadn't come along there'd have been no incentive for 
improvements to Netscape and no Microsoft browser alternative. And 
Netscape has no damage because its'' browser product was being 
given away free. Microsoft should demand a set-off from Netscape 
because the growing popularity of IE reduced the financial damage 
Netscape was inflicting on itself by giving its'loser browser 
product away.
    Art Krannawitter
    135 Camino del Sol
    Vallejo, Ca 94591
    707-557-5909



MTC-00024842

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:07pm
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,
    Bryan Moody
    124 Wilson Court
    Jacksonville, NC 28546



MTC-00024843

From: Gary Curtis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This final settlement does nothing to punish Microsoft for its 
past behavior or to address that damage that has been done as a 
result. The effect of this settlement is to bar Microsoft from 
certain behaviors that have been found to be anti-competitive and 
illegal. As a result the settlement looks more like a clarification 
of the law, as it applies to Microsoft business practices. I am 
certain that Microsoft will find ``innovative'' new ways 
to use its monopoly power to hinder competitors even if this 
particular settlement is rigorously enforced. I am very disappointed 
that more will not be done to address the damage that Microsoft has 
done to the advancement of the state of the art in computing.
    Gary Curtis (Ph.D Computer Science) --
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00024844

From: Atlas Int'l
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    hello--
    i do not have the time in my busy schedule to pen my objections 
to every single point of the microsoft settlement. suffice to say 
that this farce of a settlement proposal would be nothing short of 
comical if it were not for the fact that you (the DOJ) are actually 
considering it. the whole point of the original lawsuit centered 
around the ``lockin'' principle, whereby an entity in 
essence infects a host (computer user) so profoundly with its 
product (windows and other microsoft software) that migration to a 
to a more effective, cheaper, more efficient, or otherwise better 
system becomes economically and/or logistically unfeasible.
    any proposal by microsoft to not only perpetuate its 
``lockin'' practices, but to further press them into areas 
(education) where it has not been fully implemented is laughable.
    the core of the ``lockin'' problem lies in the fact 
that microsoft will not divulge information (software APIs) needed 
by competitors to produce products capable of nominal performance on 
the same hardware. there is a similar scenario in the microprocessor 
production industry between AMD, Intel, Cyrix and other chip makers. 
through intensive and carefully scrutinized licensing agreements, 
this area has remained free from the strong-armed tactics we see 
microsoft employ (which Intel would be quite happy to implement ala 
microsoft--were it not for these agreements). this relationship 
between microprocessor producers did not happen by accident. it has 
been the result of the annual multi $million legal efforts put out 
by the standards boards and involved companies. this is the sort of 
action that needs to be taken with microsoft. simply allowing 
microsoft to pass out software which will further their dominance in 
established markets (and incidently doesnt cost them a thing---
what's a cd cost $.02?) and improve dominance in other markets will 
not solve a thing.
    please, for the love of America FORCE this bully of a 
corporation to play by the same rules as the rest of us.
    bob holkan
    8109 otium way
    antelope, ca 95843
    (916) 454-3447



MTC-00024845

From: Michael Favor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:10pm
Subject: Tunney comments from one software developer
    I appreciate the opportunity to comment. I will be as brief as 
possible, and I hope my comments will be taken seriously.
    The proposed remedy recognizes that if Microsoft can keep part 
of the API secret, it has an unfair advantage over competitive 
Windows applications, but the proposed remedy seems to limit the use 
of the
    API information by devleopers of competitive operating systems. 
If Microsoft is required to compete for the operating system market 
as well as the applications software market, information about the 
API must be available for use by developers of other operating 
systems as well as developers of application software. The limiting 
language in the proposed remedy may seem harmless, but this is a 
very important point.
    Next, if Microsoft is allowed to develop proprietary protocols 
for network applications like email or web pages,

[[Page 27539]]

Windows would be required in order to use those applications. In 
order to allow other application and operating system devlopers to 
compete fairly against the monopoly, these network protocols must 
also be published, similar to the API information.
    Lastly, the file formats used by Microsoft applications such as 
the Office software are the logical ``interface'' between 
those programs, similar to the Windows API and network protocols. To 
the extent that these file formats are kept secret, they direcectly 
hinder the development of competitive and compatible software for 
Windows and competitive operating systems. I believe that each of 
these points is critical to the effectiveness of the proposed 
remedy, and that each one must be addressed in order to prevent 
Microsoft from directly impeeding the development of competitive and 
compatible software, and extending a monopoly that has been built 
based on unfair competition. Thank you for considering my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Favor
    [email protected]



MTC-00024846

From: hanturner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement ATTENTION: JUDGE COLLEEN KOLLAR-
KOTELLY
    Please settle the lawsuit between Microsoft Corp and the 
government now. I believe it would benefit the consumer and the 
economy. As a tax payor, I feel that the government has wasted a lot 
of money on a lawsuit that should of been settled long ago. Let's do 
something productive with our tax money. I'm self-employed and been 
using computers since the early 80's. Computer programs in the 80's 
were very diificult to learn to use. Microsoft created software that 
was user friendly and easy for the average person to use. It has 
improved my productivity and my life.
    I URGE YOU TO HELP SETTLE AND THE LAWSUIT NOW. THANK YOU FOR 
LISTENING TO ME.
    Sincerely.
    Hanneli Turner
    7118 174 St SW
    Edmonds, WA 98026



MTC-00024847

From: John Booher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have two brief suggestions on modifications to the DOJ/
Microsoft settlement that would be beneficial to consumers and to 
the software industry. File Formats
    All windows file formats should published so that competing 
developers can make compatible applications available to the public. 
This would make it more difficult for Microsoft to maintain its 
monopoly because competitors could make applications that are 
compatible with Microsoft Office. API
    All Windows Application Programming interfaces should be made 
available to all developers. This would allow developers to produce 
competing applications in a more equal environment. Also, this 
information should be freely usable by competitors such as Sun 
Microsystems and Lindows. This would allow developers to produce 
competing operating systems in a more equal environment.
    Thank you for you time,
    John Booher



MTC-00024848

From: Jarod Belshaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to register my objection to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I do not believe the current proposal serves the 
interests of promoting competition or remedying the impact on the 
Amercian consumer. Specifically, I believe the current proposal will 
stifle competition by giving Microsoft a leg-up on competitors under 
the guise of a settlement. Permitting Microsoft to settle the matter 
by delivering Microsoft products to school systems, which 
traditionally tend to favor other vendors (e.g., Apple), would be 
tantamount to state-sponsorship of the extension of Mcirosoft's 
monopoly.
    Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
    Sincerely
    Jarod Belshaw
    [email protected]
    ``Whom the gods have chosen to destroy they will teach IBM 
JCL programming.''



MTC-00024849

From: EUROSIGN METALWERKE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:15pm
Subject: ATTN: US DEPT OF JUSTICE ATTN: US DEPT OF JUSTICE RE: 
MICROSOFT
    Microsoft has made it possible for small businesses like us to 
afford computers and increase efficiency. Anti-Microsoft companies 
like Sun, Oracle, Apple et al offer software which is too expensive 
for the small business/home owner/student. If Sun, Oracle, Apple, 
Netscape-AOL had competitive products, the market would have 
rewarded them accordingly. The negative attitude by Microsoft's 
competitors is truly un-American -where the market rewards companies 
with the best values in service and products.
    It is time to let Microsoft innovate freely!!
    Very truly yours,
    Jerome R. Bulkan
    senior Vice President
    Eurosign Metalwerke, Inc.
    Margate, Fl



MTC-00024850

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Sheila Renee Crouch
    1603 West Varner Road
    Hixson, TN 37343



MTC-00024851

From: William Tsun-Yuk Hsu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to voice my disapproval of the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the Dept of Justice. I don't think it will be 
at all effective in reducing Microsoft's monopolistic and predatory 
practices.
    Bill Hsu
    Associate Professor
    Department of Computer Science
    San Francisco State University



MTC-00024852

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    As a consumer, I want the Microsoft case settled. Microsoft has 
contributed more to the economy of this country (and the world) then 
any other entity in history. Let Microsoft get on with the business 
of innovating.
    Irwin P. Garfinkle, Patent Attorney (Retired)
    366 River Road Carlisle, MA 01741



MTC-00024853

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
44 Elsie Lane
Grand Island, NY 14072-2704 IF
MERGEFIELD LCSZ
Okeechobee, FL 34974<>
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Department of Justice and the Microsoft have ended their 
three-year antitrust battle. I think this settlement was long 
overdue but I welcome an end to this litigation. I do not think the 
initial lawsuit was merited; but I want to give my support to this 
present agreement and ask that you do so also. It is time to put 
this behind us and get back to business.

[[Page 27540]]

    Microsoft has more than acceded to the Department of Justice's 
demands. Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers the rights to 
configure Windows to promote non-Microsoft software programs; 
Microsoft has also agreed to a monitoring committee to oversee 
future compliance. The company is even agreeing to reveal internal 
information about Windows to enable rivals to write more competitive 
software. Enough is enough.
    We need to move forward. Give your support to the settlement 
that your department negotiated.
    Thank you. IF MERGEFIELD PARA5 But is suspense, as Hitchcock 
states, in the box. ambiguity's put on weight.<>
    Sincerely,
    No, there isn't room, the
    Patricia Vampotic
    0024853--0002



MTC-00024854

From: Pete Rourke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Enough!
    I think that the terms of the settlement are sufficient and 
tough enough on Microsoft, and they are fair.
    I think that we are circling the vultures that are trying to 
profit from this. The ingrown toenails of the legal battlers should 
receive another salve besides continuing to fan the flames of media 
controversy. I think not putting an end to this, will stifle the 
productive output of Microsoft, which makes products that keep a 
huge number of other companies generating income and employing 
millions of workers because of this.
    If the legal wranglers of this case are latched on to gaining 
personal wealth for themselves, or are grandstanding for the benefit 
of keeping their elected positions, don't recognize that we are 
tired of this and should go on to other endeavors that produce a 
more positive output, then our country will continue to be 
victimized by vultures.
    Pete Rourke
    480-782-7744 W
    480-225-8943 C



MTC-00024855

From: Kelley, David
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Whom it May Concern;
    I really think this has gone on to far. I think AOL is using 
this to much to there advantage. Doing anything to Microsoft will 
hurt the economy especially in the US. Microsoft is the ultimate 
example of Capitalism and allowed to continue to contributed to our 
overall success in the market place and as a country. Can we just 
even settle on the agreed upon terms and move on?
    Further this suite filed by AOL is a cold vicious attack on its 
competitors over an issue that had already been settled.
    David J Kelley
    IT--Web Development Lead
    Mutual of Enumclaw
    800.366.5551 x 3448
    253.639.6349
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00024856

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Whom It May Concern:
    As your decision is under consideration in this matter, please 
remember that it is important to all US citizens to retain freedom 
in the computing world. To preserve our rights, please make a 
decision that promotes freedom of choice of operating systems, 
software and hardware in digital creation and communication.
    Thank you.
    David Nicksay



MTC-00024857

From: Denny McClarren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    How long are we going to allow this giant to crush any company 
that come up with brilliant ideas? The proposed settlement is 
definitely a BAD idea!
    Judy McClarren
    Holmes Beach, Florida



MTC-00024858

From: Paul C. Dain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
[email protected]
US Justice Dept.,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my support for this settlement reached 
between your Department of Justice and Microsoft. While the specific 
terms of the settlement encompassed more than did the lawsuit 
itself, the settlement at least brings this entire unfortunate 
chapter to a close. While I do not necessarily agree with everything 
that Microsoft has done, I do feel that there could have been any 
number of preliminary steps that could have been taken before 
plunging our government into a costly, protracted federal lawsuit. 
There is an erroneous assumption that Microsoft's products should 
somehow be in the public domain, as if they, too, are a government 
entity. Clearly they are not. Microsoft, like any other private 
American business, should be free to dictate the terms under which 
it will grant license to use its product.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Dain
    Director, Application Development
    Wirestone Chicago
    [email protected]



MTC-00024859

From: Dorothy Lutey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Netscape, AOL, looking for the deep pockets. Go out and earn 
your own money. Hard work, ingenuity doesn't always pay off.
    Kudos to Bill Gates.



MTC-00024860

From: Matthew Motley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Sir,
    I feel that it is imperative that microsoft terminate its 
monopolistic practices. That is the only result of the settlement 
that I will consider acceptable. I do not pretend I have any idea 
about the best way to accomplish this; I leave such judgments to 
you. However, that Microsoft might continue to parlay its dominant 
position in computer software into dominance in other markets is 
unacceptable. Moreover, microsoft clearly has acted in an anti-
competitive manner on numerous occasions, without remorse or any 
sign of a willingness to modify this behavior, and as such should 
suffer consequences. The penalty must be damagingly stiff, or the 
damages that microsoft has caused others must be reversed. Perhaps 
packaging Netscape, not internet explorer with their next 10 million 
windows sales might help mitigate one of the many anti-trust 
infractions. But do not back down from justice.
    Yours,
    Matthew Motley
    351A Clinton St.
    Brooklyn, NY 11231



MTC-00024861

From: David Huntsman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Sir:
    I have been listening to all this talk and arguments concerning 
Microsoft. About how all these other companies are jealous of 
Microsoft and Bill Gates. Here are a few things to remember before 
passing judgement on this case.
    *It was Bill Gates who said, ``I will put a computer in 
every household.'' All the computer manufacturers laughed at 
him.
    *It was Bill Gates who took the Federal Governments lack of 
forsight on the internet, and turned it into a trillion dollar 
business for the world.
    *It was Bill Gates who came up with operating systems that a 
novice computer person could work.
    MacIntosh and Apple did nothing but try to get the business 
community to buy systems that were very difficult to work, extremely 
slow, very inefficient, and extremely expensive. But now they are 
angry with Microsoft because Bill Gates did what he set out to do, 
and every year he is constantly comming up with better ideas for the 
working class people. Just remember that its the working class 
people that pay for most everything in this country. Now I grant you 
that Bill Gates is not being nominated for Sainthood, but think 
about it, he has accomplished the american dream, and those who 
couldn't make their dreams come true, are trying to steal his.
    In my opinion, which may or may not be relevant, this anti-trust 
suit is nothing more than another way to waste tax dollars, and the 
courts time.
    Both of which could be used more usefully.
    David Huntsman

[[Page 27541]]

    Harrah, Oklahoma...



MTC-00024863

From: Jimmy Combs
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:18pm
Subject: If it weren't for Microsoft . . .
. . . the Department of Justice
probably wouldn't even have
computers!
    If there is just one personal computer, anywhere at the DOJ, 
that holds Microsoft hardware or software, then the DOJ should be 
hung out to dry! As bad as you think they are, Microsoft is still 
the best at what they do. If the competition can't keep up with them 
and their developments, then tuff luck.
    I read today that Wal-Mart is now the largest company in the 
world. I suppose next week, the Department of Justice will want to 
shut them down as well.
    Thanks.
    CC:'webmaster(a)microsoft.com''



MTC-00024864

From: David Witt
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:25pm
Subject: ms penalties deal DOJ-
    as a technical computer user and graphic/interactive designer, i 
have been on the front lines of the pc wars for 10+ 
years--although i use multiple OS's, i most definitely prefer 
Macintosh, and as such, it has been painful for me to witness the 
numerous ``dirty tricks'' that Microsoft has pulled over 
the years in effort to lock users into their platform and programs. 
i won't go into details, but will make a few comments, and then make 
a proposal for penalties:
    first off, it is ridiculous to claim that Microsoft is an 
``innovator'--it is well known that Microsoft's 
``innovation'' is to either buy a smaller company's 
technology or create copycat programs, which they then leverage into 
the marketplace using their installed base. secondly, Microsoft 
hinders computer users worldwide by not adhering to standards 
developed by industry consortiums--they want consumers to think 
that a ``standard'' is something like Microsoft 
Word--their ``extend and embrace'' model means that 
they create a largely compliant product, but then alter crucial code 
so as to induce confusion, uncertainty and doubt into the 
marketplace, hopefully locking customers into their platform 
``for their own good''.
    i am not optimistic that this judgement will change Microsoft's 
behavior, unless there is substantial remedy, and i don't mean 
money--here is my proposal:
    ***Force Microsoft to publish ALL APIs for their Windows 
operating systems--including the so-called ``hidden 
APIs'--this would allow developers for Windows software to be 
on a level playing field w. Microsoft's own engineers, as well as 
allow outside scrutiny of their code. it has been long speculated 
that Microsoft maintains a huge advantage in developing for Windows 
because it alone has access to many APIs that outside developers 
never see***
    I would like to see additional penalties/remedies, but have no 
further suggestions--my opinion is that Microsoft has and 
continues to leverage it's monopoly position for its own gain, and 
to the extreme detriment of its competitors and its own customers, 
and without considerable remedy, and lasting monitoring, they will 
continue unabated, as their recent XP expansion suggests...
    sincerely,
    -David Witt
    Interactive Designer



MTC-00024865

From: Derek Schatz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Dear DOJ-
    I wish to express my extreme disappointment in the structure of 
the settlement with Microsoft. The agreement does not impose any 
real hardship on Microsoft, and instead lets them capture positive 
PR by donating money and software to schools. This part of the 
agreement, by the way, further strengthens Microsoft's market 
position by encouraging assault on Apple's traditional strong place 
in education. Overall, there are insufficient penalties and controls 
on further anti-competitive behavior. Microsoft in their arrogance 
clearly regards this whole antitrust episode as merely another 
business issue to deal with, rather than an impetus to fundamentally 
change the way they do business. The software industry is somewhat 
unusual in that the nature of platform standardization enables the 
market leader to erect strong barriers to entry against new 
competitors. This is why Microsoft must be limited in a greater 
fashion than would a market leader in a more traditional type of 
industry.
    Sincerely,
    Derek Schatz
    Information Security Consultant
    Irvine, California
    714-508-9344
    [email protected]



MTC-00024866

From: Ron LaMange
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    it's time to setttle this case and move on. The economy is in 
rough shape and any signs of recovery remain distant. Does delay in 
settling and moving on help anyone, is it a make work project for 
the government lawyers
    Signed , a concerned taxpayer
    Ron LaMange



MTC-00024867

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Dotti Livengood
    512 Portola Street
    San Dimas, CA 91773



MTC-00024868

From: Alex Morcos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to share with you that I am in total support of the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft on te proposed settlement that 
was reached recently. The US economy depends on firms like Microsoft 
for the innovation necessary to keep the US ahead of the rest of the 
world. As we realized after September 11, America has bigger fish to 
fry and the DOJ needs to pursue more emminent targets that 
Microsoft. Microsoft is a good company that produces great products 
that people love and cannot live without. Let them keep their 
innovation and creativity and encourage their competitors to do the 
same rather than use the justice system to weaken Microsoft.
    I sincerely hope that you will resolve the issues with Microsoft 
and that you will finalize the settlement sooner than later. The new 
administration is already doing some great things that I believe 
will be remembered in history as the one of the best administrations 
to govern America. Keep it up and get on with more important issues.
    Thanks for reading this. Alex Morcos.



MTC-00024869

From: V
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that Microsoft has provided great values all along in 
their products and services, and that the Justice dept and all the 
competitors that are against Microsoft should settle this case once 
and for all and quit wasting tax payers money on this bogus filing 
against Microsoft now and any others in the future.



MTC-00024870

From: Scott Hemmert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have reviewed the DOJ-Microsoft settlement and believe that 
the settlement could have a detrimental on consumers. The settlement 
does nothing to jump-start innovation which has been stifled by the 
Microsoft monopoly. In fact, the many loopholes will in effect 
legitimize the business practices which the courts have found to be 
illegal. I feel that this settlement should not be allowed to stand.

[[Page 27542]]

    Karl Hemmert
    Orem, Utah



MTC-00024871

From: Caleb Basinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop letting Microsoft leverage their System Software (Windows) 
Monopoly to drown out all of their Application Software competition. 
It's absolutely anti-competitive!
    The ONLY remedy is to break up the company, so that they won't 
have the ability to use their Windows market share to boost their 
application software sales.
    It's that simple!!!
    Caleb Basinger
    [email protected]



MTC-00024872

From: David Roberts (MCS)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen, a business person, and more importantly a parent; 
I feel the settlement is fair, just, timely, and makes a difference 
in the lives of children who are in desperate need o f the fruits of 
this settlement.
    I just came back from Puerto Rico, where they were very 
supportive of receiving the benefits to the k-12 education system.
    Please stop this clearly biased lawsuit protocol and move on.
    Respectfully,
    David Roberts
    Father, Husband, and concerned citizen



MTC-00024873

From: Sira Webmaster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    This is a letter from a concerned citizen. I am actually a 
college student, which puts me in greater contact with computers, as 
they are in constant use throughout campus. I also work with 
computers as I am a freelance web design specialist. I felt it 
necessary to add my thoughts to the pool of doubts and grievances 
being thrown at microsoft. From my personal experience, Microsoft 
products continue to meet low quality standards. I feel, as a 
consumer, that I am being marketed Microsoft products like Hershey's 
markets candy bars, by throwing new colors and useless features on 
the outside, while still producing a defunct, mercilessly 
frustrating product.
    Compared to all other operating systems in the world today, I 
would rate Microsoft Windows lowest on the list. It is badly made, 
doesn't serve consumer needs, and is a blatant copy of apple's 
operating system. I feel that Apple never should have lost the 
lawsuit against Microsoft because the operating system is an obvious 
mirror image. That issue aside, the quality of Microsoft's products 
is due to their emphasis and orientation towards producing more, 
selling more. It is an example of capitalism gone awry, and so I 
urge you to take matters into your own hands and amend the 
situation.
    Thank you for your time, and I urge you to make a speedy and 
just decision.
    Michael Jergins
    The Stein Institute for Research on Aging
    http://medschool.ucsd.edu/SIRA/
    [email protected]
    (858) 534-6299



MTC-00024874

From: Khouri Giordano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:31pm
Subject: Settlement
    I am a programmer with 15 years professional application writing 
experience.
    About ten years ago, I came to the decision that Microsoft 
Windows 3.0 was a way to get the graphical interface of the Apple 
Macintosh on my cheaper Intel based hardware. I went to the 
Microsoft sponsored developer conferences and came home thinking of 
how I was going to use the great new stuff coming out of Redmond. 
Since that time, I've seen Microsoft move into more areas and push 
out other software vendors, most notably Netscape. Having to write 
and support software that runs on Windows, I've seen that platform 
become more complex and more prone to problems. Instead of being 
able to discover the real cause of a few problems, I've had to work 
around them. If I were able to fix a problem in Windows and there 
was a place to submit a change, I would have.
    There came a point where I uninstalled Netscape and became a 
dedicated Internet Explorer user because it had more features and 
was more stable.
    These days, I refuse to buy anything with Microsoft connections. 
I've switched from Internet Explorer to Mozilla which is the open 
source project on which the current Netscape is based.
    I've come to loathe the company, their practices and their top 
decision making executives. I and the other Windows programmers 
where I work all laugh along with the Macintosh programmers at the 
Microsoft jokes. No one defends them any more. What intelligent 
person would defend a company that stymies any effort of hard 
working and innovative people.
    I've seen DR-DOS (MS-DOS compatible), GEM (Windows alternative) 
and even OS/2 (Windows alternative from *IBM* of all companies) come 
and go. Other efforts to provide compatible software are rendered 
completely incompatible with every new release from Microsoft. That 
applies to Windows and their other applications.
    I realize now that Microsoft was able to outlast the Clinton 
administration and now the winds have changed. Microsoft stopped 
putting up a fight because they knew that the consequences of losing 
have disintegrated.
    My opinion is aligned with that of a wide range of professionals 
in my field. The current settlement proposal does nothing to inhibit 
Microsoft. It leaves them free to infiltrate other facets of peoples 
lives and there is no evidence to make us believe that will not use 
their hefty presence to squeeze out other players and buy out or 
crush anyone in their way.
    More of the code I've been writing is now for both Windows and 
Macintosh versions of our products. Both at work and at home, I've 
come to favor FreeBSD (UNIX operating system) for my Intel hardware. 
Whenever given the choice to help Microsoft or help someone else, I 
have to go with the company that plays fair in the marketplace and 
provides the best products for the best price. That always ends up 
being NOT Microsoft.
    Khouri Giordano
    Software Technology Researcher
    Nikon Electronic Imaging http://www.nikonusa.com/
    [email protected] 631-547-4335 
631-547-0361 Fax



MTC-00024875

From: Ken Graham
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    Regarding section III H 3, a copy of which is pasted here:
    Microsoft Shall:
    3.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.
    Please be advised that the above language, specifically: 
Microsoft shall ``Ensure that a Windows Operating System 
Product does not ... (b) seek such confirmation from the end user 
for an automatic ... alteration of the OEM's configuration until 14 
days after the initial boot up of a new Personal Computer.'', 
does not constrain the length of time for such a reminder, thus 
allowing Microsoft to indefinitely issue such a dialog until such 
time as the user caves in, and selects such Microsoft Product or 
offering.
    Is it not the job of the DOJ to redress the harm done by 
Microsoft? This agreement clearly does not do so. All this language 
does is delay their existing behavior. It does not fundamentally 
alter any of the existing Microsoft practices which fall within the 
scope of the aforementioned section, and fail to fundamentally 
redress the egregious behavior for which Microsoft has been 
repeatedly found guilty.
    Please be advised that under no circumstances, should any 
installation of any product from any vendor ever modify any 
configuration of any component without user confirmation when said 
component is not directly and obviously under the pervue and user 
control of said product. Please consider the consequences of 
allowing any action to the contrary.
    That the statement, ``the manner in which a Windows 
Operating System Product automatically alters an OEM's configuration 
of icons, shortcuts or menu entries'' even exists in this 
agreement is evidence of the DOJ blessing existing Microsoft 
behavior. It is one thing for AOL to behave like this within

[[Page 27543]]

their own product. This is an annoying and arrogant behavior on the 
part of AOL. Since AOL does not allow any third party to interfere 
with their dysfunctionality, they are perfectly permitted to commit 
this cardinal sin without fear of judicial review. Additionally, 
were language like the above employed, they could still behave in 
such an egregious manner, for what they change is still under their 
control. However, when Microsoft does this same behavior it is 
different. This is an uncontested fact(except by Microsoft) who only 
wants complete free reign. Microsoft has blatantly set out to thwart 
and circumvent all attempts to prevent it from controlling all 
aspects, like AOL, and unfortunately, it looks like the DOJ is 
beFUDdled.(FUD=Fear Uncertainty Doubt/See Sun vs Microsoft). When I 
install a new version of any product, on any platform, there should 
never, ever, be an automatic reconfiguration of any product not 
clearly and obviously ``owned'' and affected, by the 
vendor and application, being installed. Seeing as installing a 
``new version of a Windows Operating System Product'', is 
clearly unavoidable, they should not be allowed to infect the data 
and configuration space of vendors and products, not clearly under 
user control within the application(s) being installed.
    A clear case of this, is the look and feel of MS Windows 
Explorer and MS Outlook(client).
    Their behavior is controlled and configured within Internet 
Explorer. The poor computer user who is not well acquainted with the 
insidious behavior of Microsoft would be at a total loss to explain 
this seemingly terrible design and implementation, much less 
discover how to correct the problem. Upon investigation inside the 
Microsoft Knowledge Base, one will encounter the phrase ``As 
Designed'', which literally means, that this behavior is 
intended. It is not a bug. They intended to show that Internet 
Explorer is required, when clearly(to those who are informed and of 
sound mind and body) it is not.
    A cursory examination of the UI's used by Outlook will clearly 
show that not only is Internet Explorer not fundamental to the OS, 
but that it was adhoc'ed onto existing applications, in a poorly 
implemented retrofit, so as to show to the uninformed exactly how 
required IE really was, when to any sane individual it was clearly 
not the case.
    Regarding:
    ``Notwithstanding the foregoing Section III.H.2, the 
Windows Operating System Product may invoke a
    Microsoft Middleware Product in any instance in which: ``, 
subsections 1, and 2, of same.
    With the issues of securing an operating system, from the point 
of view of the Microsoft Mindset, as blessed within the guidelines 
of this agreement, it seems that to abrogate all provisions, 
requires only the creation of an ``OS''(quotes added for 
emphasis/humor) which has ``security'', (read as attempt 
to provide illusion of security). Please refer to the patent granted 
to Microsoft, by the uspto, called ``Digital Rights Management 
Operating System''(application 227561). Under the guise of 
security, and NDA(non disclosure agreement), the ability of the 
public to know what Microsoft is doing will be non-existent. As a 
primary consequence, no complaint can be filed. Given that 
congress(lower case to show proper respect) has caved in to 
corporate conglomerates with the DMCA, then any attempt to discover 
how Microsoft has broken this agreement will also be illegal. Since 
this agreement relies on complaint driven inquiry to assess 
Microsoft compliance, the result will be again for Microsoft to have 
outwitted and clearly trivialized the DOJ and this court. You need 
to understand. Microsoft has no intention of keeping this agreement, 
any more than they have kept prior agreements.
    This is not an inappropriate attribution. There exists mountains 
of evidence to support such an opinion and to act without regard to 
this evidence is tantamount to negligence and Dereliction of Duty. 
This agreement is naive, and shortsighted. It is consistent with a 
desire by the FBI to abridge the rights of citizens to privacy, 
without judicial review or constraint. This can only be truly 
accomplished in a closed system, like Windows, and not via the Open 
Source community. That this opinion is warranted can easily be 
attested by such things as ``carnivore'', and ``magic 
lantern'', as reported by Reuters, and confirmed by the FBI.
    It is the opinion of this citizen, that the DOJ wants Microsoft 
in place, with its monopoly intact, so as to place their 
``carnivore''/``magic lantern'' on every PC. 
Everybody knows(that is to say, that both vendors and consumers 
recognize the need for protection from what Microsoft allows, which 
is not allowed by default, if not impossible, everywhere else) that 
Microsoft products are the worlds worst culprits for replicating 
virii(multiple of virus), and without the possibility of user 
intervention, thus behaving ``as designed''(common phrase 
Microsoft uses to describe what would normally be called an 
egregious break of security or serious design/implementation flaw). 
The protections stated in this agreement do not include the Open 
Source community. The level of attention and the number of 
individuals of common intelligence involved in this case suggest 
that this cannot be an oversite. How is this possible given that 
Microsoft only considers the Open Source Community and Linux to be a 
threat? This evidence supports opinions already expressed above 
regarding the intentions of the DOJ. The DOJ, in order to create the 
appearance of Justice, allows for: V B, ``In any enforcement 
proceeding in which the Court has found that Microsoft has engaged 
in a pattern of willful and systematic violations, ...'', which 
is made moot by provision: IV 4 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.'' A provision, which by declaration, prohibits 
testimony relevant to the former by those who are most in a position 
to testify to ``a pattern of willful and systematic 
violations''. I was under the impression that it was the intent 
of the DOJ to effect a change in behavior at Microsoft, and not just 
the appearance of doing so. I see no method outlined to address 
situations where legitimate differences of opinion occur. It is not 
difficult to foresee Microsoft testing the boundaries of this 
agreement, and getting, via ``case law'', precedents that 
result in another 1995 pointless agreement. Especially as it is 
nothing but SOP(standard operating procedure).
    Were I asked to categorize what would be observed in this 
agreement by any person of sound mind and body, it would be a 
persistent attempt to appear to constrain Microsoft, without 
actually doing so. With rare exception, Microsoft is not 
substantively constrained. In fact, with recent announcements, and 
the desire of the FBI in concert with the Administration to abridge 
constitutional rights(``carnivore'' and ``magic 
lantern''), it would seem inevitable that justice will in this 
instance, again, not prevail. What I do humbly suggest to this 
court, which is within the scope and timbre of the existing 
agreement, is that all complaints be made public via a non DOJ and 
non Microsoft website(evidence suggests the DOJ is not 
``clean'', and Microsoft we already know cannot be 
trusted). As each complaint is addressed and resolved, the 
originating complaint should be annotated as to status and 
resolution, so that the marketplace, by being fully informed, may 
execute justice.
    Sincerely,
    Ken Graham



MTC-00024876

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
(corrected)
January 25, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
RE: U.S. v. Microsoft
    OVERVIEW
    For more than three years Microsoft has been defending itself in 
antitrust litigation brought by the U.S. Justice Department and 
eighteen states, including Ohio. The proposed consent decree between 
Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice reflects a settlement, 
which adequately protects the interests of the Department of 
Justice, the states and Microsoft, while achieving the desired goal 
of consumer protection.
    UNCLEAR BASIS FOR ANTITRUST ACTION AGAINST MICROSOFT
    Many critics, including the Buckeye Institute (Ohio's free 
market think tank) questioned the Justice Department's use of 
antitrust laws against Microsoft to punish the company's innovative 
use of technology, which provided useful products to businesses and 
individuals at low prices. The

[[Page 27544]]

involvement of the state attorneys general was even more puzzling. 
It has never been clear how Ohio's citizens have been in any way 
harmed by Microsoft's business practices. The only clear 
beneficiaries to this antitrust case are Microsoft's competitors who 
prefer to have Microsoft mired in litigation instead of competing in 
the marketplace.
    IMPLICATIONS FOR ANTITRUST LAW IN THE DYNAMIC TECHNOLOGY 
MARKETPLACE
    This case calls into question the relevancy of antitrust laws in 
the fast- changing technology marketplace of today. One of the main 
reasons for the government's case was to ensure competition in 
Internet browsers.
    However, within several months of commencement of the case, the 
marketplace changed dramatically.
    Microsoft's core business--writing the operating systems of 
personal computers--is under serious challenge from Linux and 
Apple. The center of gravity for computing is shifting away from the 
personal computer, where Microsoft has a significant presence, onto 
the Internet where the conglomerate AOL-Time Warner is the major 
player. As technology progresses, the focus will likely move to 
personal digital assistants, web-enabled telephones, satellite-based 
communication devices, and other tools.
    The litigation against Microsoft sent a message to the rest of 
the technology economy that the use of innovation to meet consumer 
demands in an efficient manner will be punished by government 
agencies in the courts. This message sent shock waves throughout the 
American economy and hurt development in the technology sector.
    EFFECT ON OHIOANS
    The value of Microsoft stock tumbled by nearly 40% as the case 
dragged on. The more than 100,000 Microsoft shareholders that reside 
in Ohio collectively lost millions. And that does not include those 
investors who hold Microsoft stock in their mutual or pension funds. 
Other smaller technology company stocks fared even worse.
    BREAK-UP OF MICROSOFT WOULD WEAKEN ECONOMY AND HURT CONSUMERS
    The Buckeye Institute has publicly commended Ohio Attorney 
General Betty Montgomery, who has been involved with the case from a 
very early stage, for her support of the settlement and resistance 
to pursuing the break-up of Microsoft. She recognized that breaking 
up Microsoft would weaken our already slow economy, hurt consumers 
by limiting product development, and set a bad precedent effectively 
discouraging other high tech firms from investing in innovation and 
creativity.
    SETTLEMENT MEETS GOALS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION WHILE PERMITTING 
CONTINUED INNOVATION IN THE MARKETPLACE
    For those who have concerns about Microsoft's business 
practices, the settlement contains significant rules and regulations 
on how Microsoft designs, develops, and licenses its software. For 
example, all new Microsoft operating systems would have to include a 
mechanism that allows easier removal of the Microsoft Internet 
browser to switch to a different browser. Importantly, however, this 
settlement will still allow Microsoft, which has been a lead engine 
of the American economy over the last decade, to focus on innovation 
and productivity instead of on defending itself from government 
attacks in the courts.
    The proposed settlement satisfied the Justice Department and 
nine of the states that joined in the antitrust action. It adds 
consumer protections while permitting Microsoft to continue as a 
responsible industry leader. In the long run, Microsoft's continued 
ability to innovate and create products that meet marketplace 
demands is the real benefit to consumers.
    Sincerely,
    David J. Owsiany, J.D.
    President
    The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions
    4100 North High Street
    Suite 200
    Columbus, Ohio 43214
    Phone: (614) 262-1593
    Fax: (614) 262-1927
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00024877

From: jackie hill
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/25/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
jackie hill
367 springdale
bradenton, fl 34210
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely, 



MTC-00024878

From: Tom Minchin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    As a private consumer of Microsoft products, I would like to put 
on record my firm belief that Microsoft has been the victim of a 
terrible injustice and if anything is owed an apology.
    Microsoft has conferred great economic benefits on me, by making 
my business far more efficient through use of its software. I can 
only applaud its policy of upgrading its products. If this makes it 
hard for competitors, instead of trying to shackle Microsoft, these 
competitors should re-double their efforts to come up with a better 
mousetrap.
    The US is a great country that is supposed to champion 
capitalism. This means that it should repeal the non-objective Anti-
trust laws and let a great company like Microsoft lead the world.
    Yours,
    Tom Minchin,
    1 Robinson Court,
    Bayswater North,
    Melbourne,
    Victoria, Australia 3153



MTC-00024879

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    John O'Neill
    2797 Calle Alegre
    CA 94566-5878



MTC-00024880

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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

[[Page 27545]]

fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than 
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors, 
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the 
computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic 
industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Alfred Roeckel
    150 N. Crescent St.
    tremont, PA 17981



MTC-00024881

From: Dirk Van Dongen--NAW
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov .''
Date: 1/25/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The National Association of Wholesaler--Distributors 
strongly endorses the bipartisan settlement negotiated between the 
U.S. Department of Justice, several states and Microsoft . The 
settlement represents good news for the economy and for consumers of 
technology.
    High technology is not a single industry, but various types of 
businesses linked together: chip makers, software developers, 
equipment manufacturers and marketers, service providers, and more, 
all working to the ultimate benefit of consumers. When government 
negatively impacts a pillar of the industry such as Microsoft, the 
entire sector suffers, as do consumers and the economy.
    The terms of this settlement address the aspects of the case 
that were upheld by the Appeals Court, and do so without damaging 
Microsoft's ability to compete. Microsoft is constrained from 
harmful competition, but can continue to compete to improve upon and 
offer Windows, which is used throughout our industry, at a 
reasonable price.
    That is precisely what our members, who are highly dependent 
upon networked computer systems, need: technology which is easy to 
use which is available at a good value.
    The Microsoft settlement is the best way to achieve these ends , 
to the benefit of all. Prolonged litigation will only further damage 
our economy.
    Thank you for the opportunity to allow our organization to voice 
our endorsement for the settlement. We urge its adoption with all 
due speed.
    Dirk Van Dongen
    President
    National Association of Wholesaler--Distributors
    1725 K St., NW
Washington, DC 20006



MTC-00024882

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys'' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Michael & Sally Pickett
    963 Morello Ave.
    Martinez, CA 94553-4749



MTC-00024883

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    LOUIS SPEZZANO
    19 WILD HORSE ROAD
    STAMFORD, CT 06905



MTC-00024884

From: Christopher J. Carroll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has clearly demonstrated an utter contempt for for the 
law of this nation. Time and time again, this corporation has 
exerted monopoly power to strangle competing technologies. This has 
resulted in the consumer being forced to purchase and use deeply-
flawed Microsoft products due to an effective unavailability of 
other options. This court should demand fundamental structural 
changes to ensure that Microsoft can never again use its market 
power to harm our economy.



MTC-00024885

From: Ogg Robert G
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I believe now is the time to settle. After so many years this 
ongoing case has had a bad ongoing affect in the IT industry, I 
believe the terms of the deal to be acceptable to both party's and a 
settlement can and will also help to turn the slowing down of the IT 
industry as people/company's and concentrate on creating new and 
improved products



MTC-00024886

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom it mat concern,
    I understand that a few liberally politically comtrolled states 
comtinue to hold out for a big payday. I consider their actions to 
be using their constituants as a veil for extortion. No one really 
believes that these politicians/lawyers concern is for those 
individual citizens wronged through Microsoft's alleged anti-trust.
    On the contrary, if anything at all, most individuals across 
America, and the world benefited greatly through Microsofts 
inovative development of components for third party development of 
Windows and Internet explorer applications.
    Microsoft held no one back, rather if anyone was held back in 
the highly competative software industry, it was of their own 
undoing.
    I remember well in the early 90's, how publicly owned computers 
at various public libraries across the State of Illinois, refused to 
install Internet Explorer on their public Internet access enabled 
computers. Only Netscape was allowed on--public computers then.
    How do these States now argue that Microsoft manipulated 
government agencies into accepting IE on their computers. I see a 
very deeply seaded attempt by these state governments to dip into 
Microsoft's deep pockets for no other reason then a source with easy 
access. You government types really need to be a bit more covert 
when taking money from a baby.
    Sincerly,
    Carson E. White, Lawyer/Software developer.



MTC-00024887

From: Charles Myers
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 3:35pm

[[Page 27546]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Myers
4326 Mariner Lane
Fairfax, VA 22033
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice ,
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    I have closely followed the progress of the Microsoft case. I am 
greatly saddened at the amount of tax payer's dollars used in this 
case. While I feel that the Federal government is correct in using 
legislation and the courts to ensure fair competition and open 
markes, the time has come to cleanly and clearly make an end to this 
case. With the United States in a state of economic recession, now 
is not the time for a prolonged court battle. The technology sector 
is one of our greatest assets as a nation, and we need to allow them 
to go back to work on innovating products for this new millenium.
    As such, I feel strongly that the breakup of Microsoft is not 
needed.
    What is needed is:
    Clear guidance on what is allowable for ``bundling'' 
of software;
    Release of the source code for present and future Microsoft and 
non-Microsoft operating systems, and;
    Limits on current modes of software licensing.
    On this last point, I feel the most strongly. At the turn of the 
last century, book sellers would put a notice in their books that 
the book could not be ``resold'', as the book was 
considered the intellectual property of the publisher. In another 
similar case, recording companies in the 1930s tried to expand their 
rights under copyright protestion by using licenses (or contracts) 
that were implied to be consented to when the consumer opened the 
package. This was found to be illegal under RCA v. Whiteman by the 
Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
    Yet, in this new century, we are allowing software manufacturers 
to force consumers to constantly pay for features they do not want 
or need because of licensing. A simple return to copyright law to 
apply to all media, i.e. books, recording, and software, would be 
more beneficial, less costly, and more timely than the current 
situation. Product innovation should spurn consumer 
spending--not the fine print on unread licenses! Return 
software to the protection (and ONLY the protection) offered by 
copyright law and the doctrine of first sale.
    Sincerely,
    C. Daniel Myers



MTC-00024888

From: Bill Davies
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am appalled by the Government's desire to brush a huge 
monopoly under the rug in the interests of ``saving the 
econonmy.''
    A federal judge has ruled that Microsoft engaged in monopoly 
practices, and they should be dealt with accordingly. Your office 
should not cave.
    They continue to drag this out and get their hooks into more and 
more markets while the parties dicker over a settlement. Can't you 
see that? Pretty soon people will not be able to access the internet 
unless they have a Microsoft product or Microsoft operating system. 
This is sheer madness. I can't believe your office is so toothless.
    I hope your office will wake up and put some honest effort into 
antitrust enforcement against Microsoft, which has been adjudged a 
monopolist, and which ruling has not been overturned.
    Bill Davies
    Member, California and Alaska Bar



MTC-00024889

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Dwight Bolton
    630 ALFORD RD.
    ELLENSBURG, WA 98926



MTC-00024890

From: Brandon Harvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I would like to point out briefly that my e-business, 
Artsonia.com, runs largely on the Windows platform. We do a great 
deal of scripting and automation in the course of running an online 
museum and custom production workshop. We would benefit greatly if 
Microsoft software interoperated better with software from other 
developers.
    We believe that the proposed settlement does not do enough to 
ensure this.
    Sincerely,
    Brandon Harvey
    Program Director
    Artsonia
    http://www.artsonia.com



MTC-00024891

From: Rajen J. Shah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to you with my comments on the proposed settlement 
between the DOJ and Microsoft on this long-running case.
    (1) I am very relieved that a settlement has been reached. In 
particular, I think a lot of time and money was spent on this case 
by both sides, and it also caused a lot of distraction in the 
industry. I am happy to see an end where money is used for more 
productive activities.
    (2) I am concerned that Microsoft be kept from its earlier rough 
handed practices. There is no need for such behavior in this 
industry. I believe that the settlement adheres to the findings of 
the court and will hold Microsoft accountable for conducting legal 
business practices.
    (3) I totally disagree with the ``holdout'' states 
stand on increasing the scope of any settlement. What they have 
proposed smells very much like what Microsoft's competitors have 
been trying to do to Microsoft--particularly Sun Microsystems, 
Oracle and AOL. I don't want taxpayer dollars going to fighting on 
behalf of companies that cannot compete in the marketplace.
    (4) I am a software engineer and spend a lot of time on building 
web sites for customers. My platform of choice is Windows (2000). I 
had spent an untold number of hours, which I consider wasted, trying 
to make my software work on multiple platforms. In particular, at 
least 40% of any project is spent making my applications work on 
both IE and Netscape. Netscape has fallen way behind in terms of 
features and should be killed. Also, there is no need to have 
another browser available to the public, especially if it is 
something that is developed out of the source of IE that the holdout 
states are proposing. That will confuse the public and will also 
cause real problems for people like me.
    (5) Also, proposals to provide software such as Office on 
multiple platforms does not make sense. An untold number of hours 
would be wasted by Microsoft to do this, and it does not even make 
sense from a business perspective. If some other company wishes to 
develop such software for operating systems such as Solaris or 
Linux, they should do it with their own money. Microsoft already 
supports Windows and the Apple.
    Overall, I strongly support the settlement and wish to move on 
to solving user problems.
    Thank you.
    Rajen J. Shah



MTC-00024892

From: j. wesimeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam/Sir: (Jan 25, 2002)
    The spelling at the top of this page is slightly in error. The 
correct spelling is:
John Wiesenmeyer
Caulfield, Mo. 65626
    And yes, Im a taxpayer, homeowner, voter. You will find the 
above person in the Howell County Missouri archives.
    I consider myself a Microsoft user, customer, and might I say, 
VICTIM!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Effective e-mails should be short, especially at this time, so I 
cannot elaborate at length as to my complaints with Microsoft, but 
Ill list a few:
    I had 4+ years experience with Microsofts old OS, DOS 6.22/
Windows 3.1 before trying

[[Page 27547]]

Windows 98 this past November. So Im not a newbie, as they say.
    Nevertheless, it took me several days to figure out how to get 
Netscape 4.7.8 to run in Win 98. Little obscure dialog boxes all 
over the place that have to be set so Netscape can work clean and 
free without Internet Explorer barging in and taking over.
    You folks should know all this. Why do you ignore it? And look 
at the way the Internet Explorer files are WOVEN IN AND THROUGH the 
Windows Directory. The Windows directory is the heart and soul of 
the OS.
    If I.E. is thickly embedded therein, than how can we conclude 
I.E. is some kind of separate entity?
    Oh well, aside from what is obvious, another gripe I have is 
that the bar associations, and you at DOJ, have allowed all software 
producers, not just Microsoft, to run free and clear of any legal 
retaliation for their defective products. Companies like MS and 
hundreds of others, have their lawyers write out those clever USER 
ACCEPTS SOFTWARE [ AS IS ]] licensing agreements (so-called), which 
is an insult to consumers.
    HOW FAR WOULD YOU HAVE ALLOWED FIRESTONE AND/OR FORD MOTOR 
COMPANY TO SLITHER AWAY FROM LIABILITY WITH LEGALESE OF THAT 
SORT????
    But you let the software companies do it day in and day out.
    Why??????????????
    Defective software, from Microsoft and others, has cost me 
hundreds of hours of wasted time, and in a business setting, costs 
companies millions of dollars each year in pure waste, because of 
sloppy program code, and you let them get away with it.
    YOU ARE NOT LETTING THE AIRLINES GET AWAY WHEN THEIR PLANES 
CRASH.
    YOU ARE NOT LETTING FIRESTONE GET AWAY FROM LIABILITY.
    Your standards stink. Your justice is far from blind; it is 
prejudicial, to the extreme.
    Thank you.
    John Wiesenmeyer, voter, taxpayer and veteran of U.S. Army 51st 
Infantry Division, Charlie Co., 3rd Btn. 1970
    417-284-3951
    call me, and Ill give you an earful of testimony why all these 
software bandits should be tar and feathered.
    Thank you.



MTC-00024893

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I am writing in regards to the impending settlement issues with 
the US government and Microsoft.
    I am deeply concerned of the tone set by the Justice Department 
and it's willingness to accept the settlement of computers and 
services for poor schools. This has been well stated in broad terms 
and I concur with the facts that this sanction against Microsoft is 
unacceptable.
    Furthermore, I am concerned that this settlement is a political 
move. The issue is that Microsoft has broken the law and been found 
guilty of monopolistic practices. The only way to control further 
problems is to break the company up. They won. Now it is time to 
dismember the company into components and let them as well as other 
companies continue to compete for business.
    This is not a serious problem since the cash the company has can 
be used to allow each segment of the company to flourish for the 
short term.
    Let each division compete against each other. This is the 
American way!
    Let us look 20 years from now. Microsoft will control your tv, 
internet, and your online transactions. They potentially have the 
opportunity to control communication as well as a major player in 
the banking market. How did they get there, with the resources 
obtained through a monopoly. Having one company controlling greater 
than 94% of the computers in this country is a pretty scary.
    I will say that again Having one company controlling greater 
than 94% of the computers in this country is a pretty scary.
    This is not a question of innovation. This is a question of 
control and power.
    Would the justice department be concerned if any one country 
controlled(and Microsoft does) 94% of a market
    What if Citibank controlled 94% of all banking in the country
    What if Kemper Insurance controlled 94% of all insurance 
policies commercial and residential?
    What is Exxon sold 94% of all oil in the country?
    What is Johnson and Johnson manufactured 94% of all drugs in the 
country?
    The list can go on and on. . . . . . 
America is about competition and capitalism.
    Taking the software and making code open to others is just plain 
wrong. The amount of resources required to redevelop new products 
would take too long for a company to catch up to Microsoft. By 
breaking the company into parts allows for capitalism to breed a 
new...........the basis for what this country stands for.
    How could the company be broken up.....3 parts.......each 
company gets all rights to all parts of Microsoft. (intellectual, 
monetary, as well as assets) Basically this is what happened to ATT 
but in that instance, there were location issues.....hence the 
actual dividing was done in territories.... The nature of software 
is portability....hence let all parts take ownership.
    This would allow each part to decide which way the new companies 
can go forward.
    What did the government do with ATT.......ATT had to give up 
control of the local wires.......
    If you break Microsoft up, you will get cheaper products and a 
race to make a better product.
    Microsoft is too big to contend with in any other way. Monetary 
damages are not enough for it will be the American public that 
pays......not Microsoft.
    Let's look at this a some foresight, courage as well as wisdom. 
It is the obligation of the justice department to correct a problem 
that is going to get much worse. I hate Vanilla, let's put some more 
flavors on the menu.
    Sincerely
    Jim Mooney
    3 Lamb Lane
    Boston, Ma 02021



MTC-00024894

From: Janice Kramer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I understand that you will be deciding shortly on finalizing the 
terms of settlement reached in November with Microsoft. I want the 
Department of Justice to leave Microsoft alone. This antitrust 
lawsuit has been the biggest waste of time, has cost the taxpayers 
millions of dollars, and has negatively impacted the computer 
industry and the economy. Microsoft has been forced, at the vise of 
the competition, to defend their business practices, and battle to 
keep their innovative products and business intact.
    With no foreseeable end to the litigation, Microsoft has agreed 
to satisfy demands made by the competition. The settlement is far 
more than fair to the competition. I don't feel Microsoft should 
have to give anything away, and certainly not forced to. I know 
Microsoft is sharing parts of its Windows programming to allow the 
computer manufactures to offer software programs other than 
Microsoft's and users to make the operating system more changeable 
to their own preferences. I feel that these changes will produce 
even more superior products from Microsoft and give Microsoft more 
dominance in the software industry.
    Whatever has to be done to return Microsoft back to business 
immediately is the right thing to do.
    Microsoft feels that settling this is the proper thing, and I 
entirely support this position.
    Microsoft has been treated terribly for giving the world 
Windows. There should be no further legal action taken against 
Microsoft. Accepting the terms of the Microsoft settlement is the 
only justifiable course of action.
    Sincerely,
    Janice Kramer
    120 Horton Hwy.
    Mineola, NY 11501



MTC-00024895

From: Jansa Hobbs
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/25/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jansa Hobbs
Route 1, Box 142
Mauk, Ga 31058
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers? dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious

[[Page 27548]]

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



MTC-00024896

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:48pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I get the impression that the United States Government is 
allowing itself to be used to stop Microsoft, by competitors. They 
want the government to do for them what they have not been able to 
do for themselves.
    Let Microsoft continue to do the wonderful job they are doing. 
Where would we be without them. At least Microsoft is keeping the 
cost of software reasonable.
    Phil Azzolina
    [email protected]



MTC-00024897

From: Rob Lingelbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement is
a very bad idea.
    sincerely,
    Rob Lingelbach
    Sysadm, Computer Animation Lab
    California Institute of the Arts
    [email protected]
    http://www.alegria.com
    [email protected]



MTC-00024898

From: Jeff Dean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the terms of the settlement agreement between 
Microsoft, the DOJ, and the 9 participating states are reasonable 
and fair. I encourage final adoption of this agreement.
    Thank you,
    Jeff Dean



MTC-00024899

From: Nayfield, Rod
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that this proposed settlement will only lead to 
extension of the monopoly position of Microsoft. I believe that you 
should reject this settlement.



MTC-00024900

From: McJ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't agree with the Microsoft Settlement. I have been dogged 
and obstructed from doing my job as a process instrumentation and 
control engineer since 1994 by Microsoft's strangle hold on the 
computer industry. I have struggled with OEM e.g. Dell, Gateway, 
Micron, Compaq, and IBM to get computers pre-loaded with other 
operating systems other than Microsoft, and have repeatedly been 
told we can't supply anything else. I have asked for OEMs to provide 
systems without Microsoft Windows e.g. no operating system at all, 
and have been told I must purchase the systems with Microsoft 
Windows whether I wanted it or not. So I end up paying for something 
I didn't want, need, and couldn't use to do the job I was assigned 
to do. To get around this situation I had to build my own computers 
and load the desired operating system to do the job. However, there 
was still an issue with finding software to run on other operating 
systems other than Microsoft Windows, everybody is writing software 
for Microsoft Windows. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT! 
What should be done is to take the money from Microsoft that they 
obtained illegally through their monopoly power and use it for 
consumer education about computer operating systems choices, foster 
development of software for other operating systems, make OEMs 
provide choices of operating systems to the consumer and disclose to 
them their capabilities.



MTC-00024901

From: Dean Daniels
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dean Daniels
6128 Elliot Ave So
Minneapolis, Me 55417
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,
    Dean Daniels



MTC-00024902

From: Jeff Wright
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeff Wright
4616 Village Drive
Fairfax, VA 22030
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,
    Jeff Wright



MTC-00024903

From: Darrick Brown
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:53pm
Subject: Against Microsoft Settlement
From:
Darrick Brown

[[Page 27549]]

80 Mariani Ct
Redwood City CA 94062
(650) 365-5413
    Dear Sir/Ma'am:
    I work in the computer software industry and I strongly oppose 
the proposed settlement against Microsoft. The settlement is a step 
in the right direction, but it is severely inadequate in its reach 
and scope. I feel that it will insufficiently prohibit Microsoft 
from committing similar acts in the future, and the proposed 
settlement also does little to punish them for the acts of which 
they have been found guilty.
    I urge you to find a comprehensive solution that will actually 
benefit individuals, restore competition to the computer software 
industry, punish Microsoft for their illegal past actions, and 
prohibit Microsoft from committing such actions in the future. The 
health and future of the computer and software industry depends 
heavily on this decision.
    Sincerely,
    Darrick Brown
    80 Mariani Ct
    Redwood City CA 94062
    (650) 365-5413
    PS--I have included my specific thoughts below in the case 
where they may be helpful.
    In Section III.A, the end of the second paragraph reads: 
``Microsoft shall have no obligation 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.''
    OEM licenses terms could stretch years, if not decades. This 
gives Microsoft too much room to exploit this. Section III.A does 
not give specific situations when Microsoft could issue termination 
notices. Microsoft could just issue notices for minor problems to 
get past this ``two notice'' minimum, at which point they 
could resume their practice of threatening OEM's with unnannounced 
license terminations. This part of the proposal should be 
eliminated.
    Section III.J reads: ``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...''
    You may have noticed that Microsoft has recently changed their 
entire corporate focus to ``security and trustworthy 
computing''. Section III.J would allow Microsoft to easily 
circumvent the provisions in Section III.D (API disclosure) by 
claiming that it contains sensitive security related information. 
The API disclosure should be open accross the board, including 
security and digital rights management functionality. If their 
security models were good, it shouldn't matter if other individuals/
corporations see them. The security would work as apart of its 
design rather than its obscurity.
    These are the largest flaws of the proposed settlement. These 
two flaws would cause little change to how Microsoft operates as it 
provides them ample opportunity to circumvent the major provisions 
within the proposal. Eliminating these two flaws would make the 
proposal much better, but it would still fail to properly punish 
them for the actions they have been found guilty and the proposal is 
still extremely weak in its enforcement of the provisions going 
forward.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Darrick Brown



MTC-00024904

From: avery bartlett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:51pm
Subject: lay off microsoft
    all the government should lay off microsoft because nobody in 
the government know's anything about running of a business.



MTC-00024905

From: Tim R. Broering
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:49pm
Subject:
Timothy R. Broering
President
Programming And Micros, Inc.
[email protected]
(937)437-1113


MTC-00024905--0001
PROGRAMMING AND MICROS
146 N. Washington SL
New Paris, Ohio 45347
Phone: [937] 437-1113
Toll free: 888-5-FOR-PAM
Fax: [937] 437-1117
E-mail: [email protected]
URL: http://www.pamcc.com
January 10,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, US DOJ
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I really think that our government went to extremes filing this 
lawsuit against Microsoft several years ago. Of course, Microsoft 
had a virtual lock on the operating systems software market. But 
this wasn't necessarily due to Microsoft's refusal to be fair; 
rather, this was due to the fact that they had the best, most 
reliable software of its kind that fostered an entire generation of 
computer users. This is not a monopoly. This is good business.
    Microsoft prevented no one from competing with its software, as 
the U.S. Post Office does by preventing local mail delivery. 
However, since its software has been so flexible and intuitively 
easy to use, more and more consumers voluntarily chose it, and are 
now avid computer users.
    All this having been said, I am pleased that there is a 
settlement in place. Even though this settlement goes beyond the 
scope of the lawsuit, even obligating Microsoft to divulge 
interoperability protocols and monitoring Microsoft with a new 
three-person committee, it has the advantage of ending the 
litigation. I am hopeful that this settlement will prevail and we 
can all put this episode behind us.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy Broering



MTC-00024906

From: Brad Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    I am fully opposed to the settlement regarding the Microsoft 
case. I regard the settlement as another opportunity to allow an 
already very powerful company excessive inroads into the educational 
market which remains one of the strongholds of Apple computers 
market share. Though my interest isn't so much in their gain, I fear 
that any settlement reached with Microsoft that could bias the 
platform determination of a school, may lead to Apple computers 
overturn, thereby leaving my, and millions of other users, 
investments without continued support.
    A more fair solution may be to continue with the same monetary 
settlement, which would have to be spent on competitor's products, 
i.e. non-wintel systems. This would still provide schools with much 
needed equipment, while not allowing the corporation to benefit from 
legislative active which is intended to be a punitive.
    Thank You
    Brad Anderson
    37 Earl Street #3
    Malden, MA 02148
    781.605.0153
    [email protected]



MTC-00024907

From: Paton J. Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is not good 
for America, and will not prevent Microsoft from continuing its long 
history of anti-competitive practices.
    I am writing as an individual, and not as a representative of 
Adobe.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Paton Lewis
    Engineering Manager
    Adobe Systems
    206.675.7399



MTC-00024908

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:55pm
Subject: Mcrosoft settlement
    To whom it may concern....
    I am in agreement with any settlement that Microsoft has agreed 
to.
    Robert W. Moore



MTC-00024909

From: Robert Button
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I completely DISAGREE with the U.S. v. Microsoft proposed 
settlement. Microsoft has been found GUILTY of operating a monopoly 
to the harm of consumers. The proposed settlement does NOTHING to 
protect consumers from further damage Microsoft could inflict. 
Something SUBSTANTIAL

[[Page 27550]]

must be done to ensure that consumers have viable alternatives to 
Microsoft products in order to maintain competition in the 
marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Robert M. Button
    28344 Stonegate Circle
    Westlake, OH 44145



MTC-00024910

From: Catfish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The original idea that MS should be broken up is the only one 
that will work--basically they are now getting off scott free 
because nobody has the balls to challenge them. How a bunch of 
overpaid government employees and lawyers can argue for years over 
the bloody obvious is a scandal. It is a self evident truth that 
they abuse their OS monopoly to strangle everyone else out of the 
market.
    What is there to discuss, break them up.



MTC-00024911

From: Valeri Liborski
To: Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/25/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my concerns about direction where 
Microsoft Settlement is going.
    Bunch of the companies that not capable to win market place in 
fair competition with Microsoft are trying to ruin the company by:
    Sponsoring Non-profit organizations ( and influencing them to 
take actions that harm MS): American Antitrust Institute (AAI) which 
finances partially by Oracle;
    Failing ridiculous law suites ( AOL/Netscape);
    Trying to build negative PR about MS by publishing unverified/
incorrect or out of context info ( CNET)--every day http://
news.com has from one to 4 articles about MS, none of which 
describes how much company does for customers ( more than any other 
Software company in the world);
    Lobbying for Standards bodies to use their technology vs new 
innovative from MS using muscles of anti-MS coalition and longer 
market presence: SUN with Java, backed up by Oracle, AOL;
    Having double standards for MS and other companies--Java 
licensing belongs to SUN and MS was sued for using it in its 
products; and complains about MS not including Virtual Java Machine 
in XP ( perhaps MS doesn't want to have one extra law suite?);
    We, people, who are paying both Federal Taxes and California 
Taxes are concern that these funds are being used to damage economy 
of country; economy of state; jepardize jobs and wellfare of 
hundreds of thousands (millions) of people who do have job thanks to 
Microsoft Technologies-- including people who work in thousands 
of Silicon Valley companies which wouldn't exist otherwise since 
they are making products on top of MS technologies; decrease quality 
of life of hundreds of millions of people around the globe who are 
using Microsoft Products that have best quality and design.
    I would recommend settle the outstanding cases and let people in 
Microsoft do the job and their customers enjoy outstanding products, 
instead of supporting competitors and allowing endless law suites 
(seems like anyone who is not lazy is submitting law suite against 
MS). We all should support US economy and don't kill it.
    Market should prove who is best, not regulations on how many 
titles of Software each company is allowed to produce.



MTC-00024912

From: Ernie Fisch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I sent an email yesterday but it was quite brief. I want to 
expand a bit. As a user of a minority operating system I feel the 
bite of Microsoft's illegal tactics every day. I can't get drivers 
for new equipment because of Microsoft's exclusionary agreements 
with equipment manufacturers. I have more and more trouble using 
what are supposed to be open media because of Microsoft's subversion 
of open standards. Too many instances of this stuff occur for it to 
be an accident. Microsoft wants to destroy minority operating 
systems.
    I find it quite incredible that having proven that Microsoft is 
monopolistic and uses their position to destroy competition that the 
government would propose such a feeble and essentially useless 
remedy. Microsoft monopolistic practices must not only be stopped, 
they must be reversed.
    Ernie Fisch ernfischMicrosoftcox.net



MTC-00024913

From: David Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the agreement of the Department of Justice and the 
antitrust settlement between Microsoft and DOJ and nine states.
    I do not think any further actions are needed and feel that in 
these times of more important issues we should move on. As a tax 
payer I think my money could be better spent on other issues.
    I hope that the settlement between Microsoft and DOJ will be 
final in this long issue.
    David D Brown
    309 Gandy Court
    West Columbia, SC 29169
    803-951-3789



MTC-00024914

From: Edward Goodrich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:58pm
Subject: letter to Mr.Ashcroft
    Dear Microsoft.
    Something happened to the letter I attempted to send to Mr. 
Ashcroft. Please send it to me again.
    I feel that i will need help to forward it. Please call me by 
phone at 828 287 3434 so that I may comply.
    Edward E. Goodrich



MTC-00024915

From:
To:
Date:
Subject: 
Dave Beers
Microsoft ATR
1/25/02 3:58pm
Pro-Microsoft



MTC-00024915 0001

    It is a tragedy that Microsoft, perhaps the most important and 
uniformly ethical company in the history of the US, continues to be 
targeted by incompetent competitors, lawyers, and other parasites 
who are effectively killing the industry and world economy.
    Every industry in every sector has benefitted from Microsoft's 
unrelenting focus on doing what's fight for the customer, regarless 
of cost to itself. All arguments within the company about what to do 
revolve not around how to eradicate competition, but how to do 
what's right for the customer--get them more features, more 
capacity for less money.
    As a corporation, and as a group of individual employees, no 
company can claim a more serious and more tangible dedication to 
education, the arts and sciences, promotion of diversity, and other 
charitable and laudatory social causes.
    As I am primarily an Apple-user, I have personally benefitted 
from extensive innovation on all three major platfoms (windows, 
apple, and unix). My bias remains in favor of relatively blue-
collar-behavior of IBM/Microsoft/Apple/Dell entities who keep their 
nose to the grindstone, continually investing in R&D in an 
endless pursuit of more benefits and better value for their 
customers, and to whom litigation is at the bottom of their 
priorities
    It is unfathomable to me that any goverment or judicial entity 
would prefer to hear a story from entities like AOL/Sun/Oracle who 
have gone years without making any improvements in either the 
quality or the value of their own products, in favor of disparaging 
and litigating against Microsoft, and who spurn investments in 
R&D, preferring instead to invest in lobbyists, lawyers, and 
anti-MSFT marketing. AOL with it's cross-media empire that includes 
controlling interest in cable companies and access to broadband 
distribution is by far the scariest entity--more so than 
Microsoft ever was, or could be--to those of us consumers who 
continue to get billed without recourse, months and years after 
trying to terminate a relationship with them.
    Steve Case and Larry Ellison are the shady and unethical 
parasitic salesmen.
    Bill Gates, Steve Balmer, Michael Dell, and Steve Jobs are 
creative geniuses and heroes.
    .02 cents from: Dave Beers, Seattle WA



MTC-00024916

From: iand and wei
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Department of Justice:
    Under the Tunney Act, I would like to comment on the proposed 
final judgement in the United States v. Microsoft case.
    As a concerned citizen who has some experience using computers 
running

[[Page 27551]]

operating systems from Microsoft and other organizations I am 
concerned that the proposed final judgement does not protect 
consumers and companies competing with Microsoft. I use Microsoft 
operating systems where I work. A few weeks ago my computer suddenly 
started shutting down improperly, and I called our help desk to ask 
if they could fix the problem. I was told that the problem was a 
well known defect in Windows 98, and that Microsoft had no intention 
of fixing it. This is just a small illustration of the way 
Microsofts monopoly affects consumers. If there was a true 
marketplace with competition, Microsoft would have had to fix the 
problem long ago.
    Unfortunately the proposed settlement does precious little to 
try to develop a competitive marketplace. It proposes to open 
Microsofts APIs, but the language is so weak as to make it useless 
in promoting competition. In fact, the only competition for 
Microsofts APIs, the open source WINE project, is excluded from the 
API disclosure in Section III.J.2 of the proposed final judgement, 
because the WINE project is not a business (all business competition 
having been extinguished long ago by Microsofts business practices).
    The major reason people and businesses run Microsoft operating 
systems is because they need to run the applications that run on 
those systems. A successful reimplementation of Microsofts APIs, 
could go a long way to restoring competition in the marketplace. I 
hope that any final judgement in this case will restore competition.
    I fear if this proposed settlement is made final it will cause 
irreparable harm to the U.S. consumer, to the U.S. software 
industry, and possibly to the country as a whole.
    Sincerely,
    Ian Kennedy
    1900 S. Eads St., Apt. 512
    Arlington, VA 22202



MTC-00024917

From: Gibbs.Ivan.J
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If Microsoft doesn't get punished for what they have done, you 
will hurt the American entraepreneurial spirit. I have degrees in 
Engineering Physics and Electrical Engineering. If I know that a big 
company can just squash my dreams, I lose motivation to innovate. No 
matter how much people may like to have one leading monopolistic 
company to provide everything, it hurts individuals. And this 
country is made up of individuals, not monopolistic companies.



MTC-00024918

From: Weathers, Norman R.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing in reference to the recent settlement talks between 
the US DOJ and Microsoft. I am saying on record that I strongly 
oppose the actions that are currently being taken by the DOJ against 
Microsoft because they are too lenient. My reasoning for this is as 
follows:
    (1) Microsoft has been found guilty of harboring an illegal 
monopoly. They have been found guilty of destructive business 
practices, and because of this, they need to have a penalty that 
once again levels the playing field between the software producers. 
Opening up some API's to some companies does not allow for 
competition within the market, especially when a viable alternative 
to Microsoft is completely overlooked in the settlement, any Open 
Source Project. For example, a competitor to Microsoft's own network 
drive capabilities is the SAMBA project, yet, under the current 
settlement, no API's can or ever will be made available to them. 
This must be remedied.
    (2) Microsoft has levereged parts of its foundations to further 
its monopolies. For instance, Windows is Microsoft's OS, and through 
its OS, levereged its own Office Suite to a monopoly of the desktop 
publishing/word processing/ information market. Now, many 
individuals would love to be able to interchange information and 
data with other individuals who may or may not use a Microsoft 
Office component, but the sad truth is that the format has never 
been documented, and has changed with each release of the Office 
Suite. For example, during a recent job search, I was required to 
send my resume in Word 98 format. Not just Word, but specifically 
Word 98. I was fortunate to have a copy of Office 98 installed, but, 
why couldn't I have used an open format such as RTF, HTML, PDF, XML, 
etc, etc.... This is because the Office format is the central 
strangle hold that has held competition out of the market. Open the 
document formats to the public, and watch competition surge, and 
with it, better applications.
    (3) Microsoft has further entrenched itself into other areas, 
and will soon become a monopoly due to its strong tactics and user 
base. For instance, Internet Explorer and Microsoft Network. 
Microsoft has for all intents and purposes ``won the browser 
wars'', or so it thought. They have created several 
enhancements to the original HTML code (as well as Netscape and some 
others), but now, due to the fact that Microsoft has a larger user 
base, they can now dictate ``standards'' that become very 
Microsoft centric. This can lead to web sites that don't just say 
``Best when viewed by MSIE'', but web sites that say 
``Can ONLY be viewed by MSIE''. This effectively can shut 
out a large group, such as Linux, BSD, Apple, Sun, that do not have 
easy access to IE (I know there are ports available for some of 
these OS's, but they tend to be troublesome, unstable, and useless). 
Now, you can dictate another standard that effectively kills off any 
competiting product because you create the standard. This can be 
disastourous.
    (4) Microsoft continues to further move into markets that are no 
longer vertical. For instance, the new game console, the XBox. This 
is now an attempt to move into home game consoles, gaming networks, 
online gaming, and possibly 2 or 3 other markets. Now, if they move 
in and follow all the rules and procedures, than they can compete 
with Sony and Netscape, and create a thriving market. However, if 
Microsoft handles this market as they have others, by settling easy 
during this time, do we allow them to legally manuever into this new 
market and take it over as well?
    I am beseaching any and all to please, read this, look back at 
Microsoft's history, its doings and non doings. Look at the 
litigations and court cases that have happened, that are pending, 
and that should have happened. B
    y now, we have broken apart AT&T, and Standard Oil. While 
breakup may not be the answer (but then again, it may be), neither 
is this slap on the wrist that is basically allowing Microsoft to 
continue its practices. Remember, not only are they continuing them, 
but now, with the way we have settled with them, we are getting 
ready to say, ``It's OK, Microsoft. Go ahead and be a monopoly. 
You are doing nothing wrong.''
    Let's not send that signal to this convicted illegal monopoly. 
Let's not take the short road to justice, and thereby ignore 
justice. Let's not end it for ``the country's sake''. 
Let's do the right thing and finally penalize Microsoft for doing 
what it has done for a long time, breaking the law. Further open 
API's including document formats and interfaces, open up parts/all 
of the OS source code, allow other non-profit organizations to be 
included within the scope of the judgement and ruling, and above 
all, let's do something to once again promote competition within the 
world of software development so that we can have a lower cost of 
software, higher quality, and a higher standard of living through 
that better software.
    Thank you for your time in this matter.
    Norman Weathers
    System Administrator
    Ponca City, OK
    74604



MTC-00024919

From: Martin Runyan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing to express my strong belief that the Microsoft 
antitrust matter must be brought to a close quickly and fairly. I 
believe the Justice Department has found a fair formula for the 
settlement. I am concerned however that the continued litigation by 
the states and by Microsoft's competitors is unwarranted and will 
only hurt our economy.
    As a consumer, I feel that Microsoft's products are well 
designed and fairly priced. I also believe there is more than 
adequate competition in the emerging Internet services marketplace 
to ensure that Microsoft's future success will be based on the merit 
of their new products and not on their past dominance in the 
operating system arena.
    There is no need for further litigation. The only segment of our 
economy to benefit from that will be the legal profession.
    Sincerely,
    Martin E. Runyan



MTC-00024920

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:00pm
Subject: Department of Justice and Microsoft

[[Page 27552]]

Corporation settlement.
January 25, 2002
Department of Justice
Re: Antitrust settlement between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft
Corporation.
    Dear Sirs:
    I want to take the time to voice my personal opinion about the 
antitrust settlement agreement. I believe that the provisions of the 
agreement are tough, reasonable and fair to all parties, and go far 
beyond the findings of the Court of Appeals. I must also say that I 
did not agree with the lawsuit itself when it was first filed.
    The Microsoft Corporation is the pioneer in our history of 
technology. They started with little more than ideas and have become 
a pillar of capitalism, as we know it in this world today. Don't 
sacrifice what our great nation has been built on.
    I therefore urge the District Court to rule that the terms of 
the settlement are in the public's best interest.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Raymond Merritt
    Tucson, Arizona



MTC-00024921

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Eugene Peplowski
    P.O. Box 3071
    Show Low, AZ 85902-3071



MTC-00024922

From: Chadbourne, Seth
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 4:01pm
    I write to give you my opinion on the Microsoft settlement. 
First, let me tell you that I don't have a horse in this race. I 
don't own any securities of Microsoft or any of its competitors, nor 
do I do business directly with Microsoft or its competitors. In 
short, I have no monetary relationship in any way with Microsoft or 
any of it's competitors. What I do have, is seven years experience 
as an analyst and portfolio manager for one of the largest and most 
respected high yield bond asset management companies in the world.
    As a patriot, and fierce defender of free markets and the 
American capitalist system, the entire Microsoft case sickened me 
from the outset. The genesis of this case was the vitriolic hatred 
the extreme left wing of the Democratic party has for successful 
U.S. companies. This was a political case brought by a politicized 
Justice Department. Now that the scoundrels that ruled the Clinton 
Justice Department have left their offices, the Bush Justice 
Department should allow justice to prevail by dropping the case 
entirely. While Microsoft may have used some aggressive business 
practices, they did nothing to flagrantly violate the US antitrust 
laws. Furthermore, U.S. businesses must be allowed a certain amount 
of leeway if they are to successfully compete in the global economy. 
Most intelligent professionals on Wall Street agree that even the 
settlement to which Microsoft agreed is unfair to Microsoft. Please 
do not punish Microsoft for being a successful American company, as 
the socialists would have you do.
    CC:Hendon, Travis



MTC-00024923

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Karen Hoffman
27633 SE 400th Way
Enumclaw, WA 98022
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The reason for this letter is to request that you make a good 
effort to ensure the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust 
case becomes a reality.
    Challengers and foes of Microsoft may pressure officials to 
delay this settlement in favor of continued litigation in this case. 
They are working under the premise that the courts should punish 
Microsoft. I do not believe the courts should be used in this way.
    Furthermore the settlement that is being offered is a good 
agreement. The settlement will allow easier placement of non-
Microsoft products on Microsoft operating systems; including easier 
removal of Microsoft components. Additionally the settlement will 
permit computer makers to place non-Microsoft operating systems on 
computers with fewer restrictions, even if they also use Microsoft 
systems. Moreover the settlement creates a technical review 
committee that includes a full time government monitor to ensure all 
elements of the settlement are enforced. It is clear that this 
settlement should be implemented and this settlement is good.
    Sincerely,
    Karen Hoffman



MTC-00024924

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Norman Coley
    266 Vance Dr NE Apt C
    Concord, NC 28025-3369



MTC-00024925

From: Doug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:03pm
Subject: Make Microsoft give out code needed for compatiblity
    Regarding the current settlement between Microsoft and the 
D.O.J. needs to be addressed. I do not know a great deal about it, 
but I read the Microsoft is NOT required to give software 
competitors the information needed for compatibility with their 
operating system.
    Software programmers need specific information in order to 
ensure that their product will work on any Windows based PC. There 
are also many other issues that need to be addressed with the 
settlement. I am voicing my disagreement with the proposed 
settlement.
    It gives Microsoft too many advantages.
    Douglas Strick
    Basehor, KS



MTC-00024926

From: novaman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am so sick of these suits. They were garbage to begin with and 
the costs to the governments, investors, state pension funds, the 
economy and Microsoft have been enormous. For God's sake let it die.
    The settlement is far better than Microsoft's opponents deserve. 
The whiners have won and the consumers and investors have lost.
    Thomas P Noonan
--4600 S Four Mile Run Dr #219
--Arlington, VA 22204



MTC-00024927

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:51pm
Subject: Comments
    Move forward with the settlement and end the petty persecution 
of Bill Gates and

[[Page 27553]]

Microsoft for having the courage to set standards in the software 
industry. The sour grapes contention that Microsoft is damaging 
competition is simply a series of self interest whining promoted by 
weak unimaginative firms who would rather get even than ahead.
    CC:barbbenn@exchange.
    microsoft.com@inetgw



MTC-00024928

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Randy Hoffman
27633 SE 400th Way
Enumclaw, WA 98022
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The reason for this letter is to request that you make a good 
effort to ensure the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust 
case becomes a reality.
    Challengers and foes of Microsoft may pressure officials to 
delay this settlement in favor of continued litigation in this case. 
They are working under the premise that the courts should punish 
Microsoft. I do not believe the courts should be used in this way.
    Furthermore the settlement that is being offered is a good 
agreement. The settlement will allow easier placement of non-
Microsoft products on Microsoft operating systems; including easier 
removal of Microsoft components. Additionally the settlement will 
permit computer makers to place non-Microsoft operating systems on 
computers with fewer restrictions, even if they also use Microsoft 
systems. Moreover the settlement creates a technical review 
committee that includes a full time government monitor to ensure all 
elements of the settlement are enforced. It is clear that this 
settlement should be implemented and this settlement is good.
    Sincerely,
    Randy Hoffman



MTC-00024929

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:00pm
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,
    Gerald Cook
    2840 Albert Reid R.
    Sautee Nacoochee, GA 30571



MTC-00024930

From: Marshall, Cheshana
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Proposed settlement is a bad idea



MTC-00024931

From: John Torrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John A. Torrence
2906 Coolidge Drive
Bellingham, WA. 98225
January 25,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing in response to the antitrust settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. In my opinion, the 
settlement is more than fair, considering Microsoft has agreed to 
terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures that were 
actually at issue in the original suit.
    As I understand it, among dozens of other things, Microsoft has 
agreed to server interoperability, meaning that Microsoft gives its 
competitors the protocols implemented in Windows that are used to 
interoperate natively with any Microsoft server operating system. 
They also have agreed to submit to the authority of a three-person 
technical committee, which will monitor Microsoft's compliance with 
the settlement and assist with dispute resolution. It is obvious 
that Microsoft is willing to do what is necessary to bring closure 
to this matter. The Department of Justice should in return bring all 
further litigations to a halt.
    Sincerely,
    John Torrence



MTC-00024932

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing this hoping that many others who have been in a 
similar position on Microsoft throughout the years will do the same. 
I am relatively new to the computer industry, having bought my first 
computer in 1995, and as thus have little to no input for the times 
preceding this.
    I have always been a curious and technically intuitive person 
and computers proved to follow the same pattern for me. I quickly 
learned to upgrade and eventually build new computers from their 
various components. I was oblivious to a great many things early 
on...... and am still oblivious to many this very day. There is one 
thing, above most others, I am grateful for becoming aware of during 
the last 2 years, And that is the behavior of a particular 
company.... Microsoft. I have been frustrated at the lack of 
stability, security in their products for many years.... but still 
find myself having to use them... Simply because there is no viable 
alternative.... They have preached time and again about how their 
next Operating System will be stable, or secure but still each 
subsequent operating system had it's major stability issues and 
security breeches. But I'm losing my train of thought..... I 
recently (Nov-Dev 2001) read through the entire findings of fact in 
the Anti-trust Vs. Microsoft and was just absolutely astonished at 
the atrocious, and very harmful things they have done. I'm sure you 
have read through the findings of fact in the case so won't run 
through all the harm they have done Acting against those who either 
or indirectly went against their wishes. I am far from an expert on 
market dynamics and antitrust laws, but there is one thing which I 
know.
    I know it just as I know my name, where I live, or my social 
security number. I know that the settlement in the antitrust case is 
not even close to nearing a punishment that will discourage further 
misdeeds. The establishment of the 3 person Technical Reviewer Board 
from what I have read has little to no power to actually enforce 
anything... And what most consider one of the more severe 
punishments.... The donation of 5 Billion in Computers and Software 
to the schools.... You know they are going to be donating Microsoft 
software whenever possible. Their Windows operating systems, MS 
Office products, and whatever else they can get in. So Let me get 
this straight..... their punishment is to expand their market share 
in an area that has traditionally been dominated by Apple? What kind 
of punishment is that? I can definitely understand why Apple is so 
distraught over the settlement.
    The bottom line is that I feel Microsoft has been taking 
advantage of their monopoly position to overcharge the consumers for 
a very long time. Now they have been using it to maintain their 
dominance and the, ever so important, barrier to entry for any would 
be competitve technologies. The end result being for them to 
increase their market share in an area traditionally dominated by 
one of their only competitors as punishment...
    I know I am only one person..... One consumer..... One 
citizen.......
    But I for one am not pleased at this settlement.....
    And I for one don't feel the best interests of the consumer were 
taken into consideration in this settlement.... Since this 
settlement will in no way hinder or discourage Microsoft from taking 
advantage of the consumers.
    Thank you for your time,
    Don Leger



MTC-00024933

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division

[[Page 27554]]

601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of 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 Brophy
    111 Wall St.
    Kalamazoo, MI 49001



MTC-00024934

From: Howard Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:14pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    IF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SPENT AS MUCH MONEY PURSUING ``OSAMA 
BIN LADEN'' AS THEY HAVE IN ``HOUNDING BILL GATES AND 
MICROSOFT'', WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE SEPTEMBER 11TH TRAGEDY.
    HOWARD PETERSON
    907 VANCE ST N
    WILSON, NC 27893



MTC-00024935

From: wendy willson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Esteemed Justices;
    I would like to voice my opinion that it is far beyond time to 
put a close to this matter and further litigation. The remedies to 
be imposed are fair and just, and pave the way for competition on a 
level playing field.
    I beseech you to do your best to put an end to what has become 
an expensive (and now irrelevant, given the more open XP platform 
and other technological innovations recently) battle. I have 
confidence that Microsoft has learned its ``lesson'', and 
I hope you see the logic in closing this chapter for the sake of our 
economy, for I do believe, if a settlement is made, stockholders and 
retailers all over the country will sigh a sigh of relief that will 
resonate ``round the world. I think this single event would 
make more of a difference than any rate cut by Mr. Greenspan ever 
could.
    Sincerely,
    Wendy Willson



MTC-00024936

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Robert Bennett
    2400 Southlea Dr.
    Dayton, OH 45459-3645



MTC-00024937

From: Michael Keating
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is forcing users to use their second rate products. 
They are forcing open source programs and applications out of the 
way, by making sure they do not run on windows. Microsoft inserts 
code into their applications for the sole reason of stopping it from 
running on other Operating systems.
    I am not going to bother with the technical and legal mumbo 
jumbo which I am sure that many other people have both complained 
about before, and I am sure that the lawyers have brought to your 
attention, that is of the unfairness of the Final Judgment in United 
States v. Microsoft. Microsoft is forcing the computer hardware 
industry into a wall. It is immpossible to buy a personal computer, 
either from Gateway, Dell, Compact, or Hewllet Packard, that does 
not contain Microsofts XP.
    Microsoft XP is a horrible product. You are punished if you dont 
use it, because of lack of newer software on the other operating 
systems. They release products before they are ready, and then 2 
years later release another one that fixes half of the problems.
    More should be done to stop this company. They are downright 
EVIL and that is an understatement. They dont care about their 
consumer base, just about getting their money.
    Please help the american people, by making their lives a little 
bit less hassled by eliminating their computer woes by taking this 
company and forcing them to actually ACT upon their mistakes to fix 
these problems in America's Time of Need.
    Anyone that doesn't see how the Microsoft Trail makes a big 
impact on people's lives ( and more so in the future when more 
products and PCs are a bigger part of our lives), doesn't really 
deserve to be called an American unless they are CONCERNED about how 
this hurts the American people, and they feel their pain but dont 
act upon it.
    Thank you,
    God Bless the US
    The Keating Family



MTC-00024938

From: Harold Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    For Pete's sake, enough already. I believe it is time to end the 
Microsoft madness and drop these court findings that are damaging 
our economy. I suggest that the time will come in several decades 
when the public will look back on the Microsoft debacle as a time of 
governmental stupidity.
    Further, the Gates team and his current software developers will 
be seen in the same light as Bell, Edison and other progressive 
inventors. I believe I would not have the wonderful and cheap 
computer software if it were not for
    Bill Gates.
    For Pete's sake just stop it.
    Harold Bishop Morgan
    [email protected]



MTC-00024939

From: Theo Gantos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft needs to have checks and balances
    Thanks for the opportunity to put these remarks on the record. I 
have written several articles on the issue of Microsoft in the IT 
industry and think that allowing them to operate as they have is a 
great impediment to the industry. Since the IT industry is dominated 
by the US, this also represents a threat to our GDP. Previous 
remedies are as insufficient as 2 man police car patrols were 
against street gang activity in Chicago. Only 
``proactive'' checks and balances will protect our 
industry. These must that assume that this company will continue to 
do what it has in the past, abuse its monopoly power. Waiting 
several years and spending millions of dollars to bring them to 
trial over violations is like trying to lock the house after it has 
burnt to the ground.
    The government established emissions and safety regulations when 
it became apparent that the auto industry was inherently unable to 
self-regulate. I think that Microsoft has the burden to prove that 
it can prevent future transgressions, which it cannot. I remember a 
computer industry dominated by IBM in the 1970's which was devoid of 
serious innovation.
    Microsofts hold on the industry is even more pronounced and 
dangerous.
    Here are the links to my publications about Microsoft. I'd like 
these entered into the record as well.
    http://www.teka.com/publications/paper19971030.html
    http://www.teka.com/publications/paper19971106.html
    http://www.teka.com/publications/paper19980115.html
    http://www.teka.com/publications/paper19980304.html
    Regards,
    Theo Gantos
    [email protected]
    TEKA
    1321
    Ashland Ave
    Evanston, IL 60201-4039

[[Page 27555]]

    Ph: (847) 864-7390
    http://www.teka.com
    CC:David M. Deaver,Wendy Crespo work



MTC-00024940

From: j. wesimeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam/Sir: (Jan 25, 2002)
    As part of DOJs (and the States) suit against Microsoft, I 
propose the following as part of the settlement:
    1. That Microsoft be handed a court order to change their 
official company name from: Microsoft--to --- THE BUG 
FACTORY--. And if it should happen that said name is already in 
use by some well-meaning firm, then just modify same to: THE 
SOFTWARE BUG FACTORY, or anything so similar. Dont need to be too 
particular, eh?
    2. The courts should also order Microsoft to change their 
official company logo to that of a spider, mosquito, cockroach, or 
whatever creepy-crawling critter the justices think most 
appropriate. Just so it presents the unsuspecting consumer with a 
general idea that the product inside is BUG INFESTED...
    Ladies and gentlemen, what is wrong with this idea? Stevie 
Balmer, King Willhelms (aka Gates) number one mouthpiece, admitted 
in the summer of 2000, that Windows 98 had 25,000 known bugs (that 
is, known to Microsoft). What? Oh sure, Mr. Balmer was speaking at 
the festivities kicking off the launch of Windows 2000, at that 
fancy-dan hotel there in San Francisco. Yes, here we have the 
highest officials of Microsoft admitting before a packed audience, 
that they know, they admit, that Win 98 had no less than TWENTY FIVE 
THOUSAND KNOWN DEFICIENCIES, and they got away with that. Consumers 
had to accept this level of garbage.
    Please include the above suggestions in your settlement decree. 
I would not mind purchasing King Wilhelms next OS, if it was packed 
inside a box with little bugs printed all round the carton. It would 
be a form of embarrassment that MS soundly deserves.
    Thank you
    J.Wiesenmeyer
    417-284-3951
    veteran
    taxpayer
    voter
    homeowner
    law-abiding citizen



MTC-00024941

From: Ted Roby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In regards to the proposed settlement for the Microsoft 
Antitrust Trial, to be submitted by January 28th, 2002:
    In reviewing the details of the proposed settlement, I find many 
loopholes and variations in it's definition. I would like to express 
simply, and clearly what makes sense to me in regards to the 
operation of Microsoft.
    First, definitions of both Windows OS and Middleware should not 
be so limited. Microsoft, like any other forward moving business 
will within the year have new services and applications available 
that will not be covered by these definitions. To put it plainly, I 
offer the following statements:
    1. Any developer should be able to write software that will run 
on Microsoft Operating System platforms, in use now or in the 
future.
    2. Any developer should be able to create their own OS that 
would allow Microsoft and Windows-based applications to run on their 
OS.
    3. Microsoft should not be able to in any way, coerce or use 
leverage over any computer hardware manufacturer to prevent them 
from developing for non-Microsoft developers and companies.
    In my opinion, this would create an environment where 
Microsoft's applications and operating systems would stand on their 
own merit. There is no reason for Microsoft to release any of it's 
source code if it does not wish to. So long as source code and tools 
are made available for the use of creating applications that can run 
on Microsoft operating systems, and operating systems that can run 
Microsoft applications.
    Any punishment taken against Microsoft should be with respect to 
keeping Microsoft from bullying any developer, service provider, or 
manufacturer who wishes to use something besides Microsoft products.
    Under normal circumstances I would agree with letting a company 
reward those who use it's products, but since Microsoft has already 
gained it's monopoly, and has been found to hold far more power than 
should be allowed, I believe no such benefits shoud be given.
    Microsoft needs to let it's applications and services stand on 
their own merit for a while. It should be encouraged to focus it's 
efforts on making a product that stands out on it's own without the 
bullying and coercion that Microsoft has been famous for.
    Ted Roby
    Systems Engineer
    SRA NetWorks
    1787 Lencar Way
    San Jose, CA 95124
    http://www.sranetworks.com
    Office: (408)436-6048
    Pager: (800)710-5228



MTC-00024942

From: Ruth Millward
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ruth Millward
9716 Bighorn
Pocatello, ID 83204
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,
    Ruth Millward



MTC-00024943

From: Eileen T Bender
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:12pm
Subject: To whom it may concern:
    To whom it may concern:
    While I am aware and appreciative of the contributions, both 
technological and philanthropical, of Microsoft and the Gates 
Foundation, I am concerned that the proposed settlement with this 
company will do nothing to curtail its monopolistic and exclusionary 
business practices--practices which seem to fly in the face of 
their social and ethical commitments. The ethos of exclusion is 
built in to every product they sell, in effect thwarting the 
entrepreneurial and creative energies of a free market. This lesson 
was brought home to me forcibly over the holidays, when I received a 
gift of a new computer equipped with ab NS XP platform. THe MS 
software is not only a dominant presence on the desktop, but must be 
overridden in many cases in order to install the non-MS software 
which I find necessary to do my work. Sad to say, it is what I as a 
consumer have come to expect of Microsoft, and I see nothing in the 
proposed settlement that would restore a consumer's right to choose. 
Thus, I must boice my disappointment of the proposed settlement, and 
my hope that it will not be made final until these egregious 
practices have been curtailed.
    Eileen T. Bender
    Department of English
    Indiana University South Bend
    1700 Mishawaka yAve. Box 7111
    South Bend, IN 46634
    [email protected]
    574-237-4221



MTC-00024944

From: Jeanne Sarfaty Glazer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just a quick note to let you know I think the proposaed 
Microsoft settlement is a BAD IDEA!
    Sincerely,
    Jeanne Sarfaty Glazer Silver Spring, MD



MTC-00024945

From: gail austin
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 27556]]

Date: 1/25/02 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I belive the settlement that has been worked out is fair. And 
now you need to go look at some body like ENRON how realy needed 
looking at.



MTC-00024946

From: Jeff Knapp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi, I just wanted to voice my personal opinion on the Microsoft 
Settlement. First off, I am a Macintosh user only. I do not use 
Microsoft Windows or Intel based hardware. This is as much a 
philosophical and ethical stance as much as it is also a practical 
one. The ethical stance is simply one of being very opposed to 
Microsoft's predatory and unethical business practices. Their whole 
stance is one of conquer and destroy the competition.
    The practical reasons are primarily rooted in that Macintosh 
systems and OS are simply superior products that are more ideally 
suited for my kind of work (animation and visual effects for video).
    Over the years, MS has engaged in finding ways to buy out or 
quash out any competition including attempts at stamping out Apple 
Computer (though, not before stealing ideas and innovations Apple 
comes up with). They did so with Netscape by choking off an 
important source of revenue to Netscape by giving away for free what 
Netscape had been charging for--the web browser.
    Another tactic Microsoft is currently, actively engaging in now 
to choke off competition is to build their OS in such a way that it 
is almost impossible to create competing products for 
``features'' built into Windows. Windows XP has a set of 
built-in media handlers such as video players (Windows Media 
Player), music and web browsing. MS has written Windows XP in such a 
way that it is very difficult for a user to get any competing 
products such as RealMedia and Apple's QuickTime running well. The 
same goes with web browsers, Netscape and Opera both are cumbersome 
to get to run adequately in Windows XP. If you want to play an MP3 
file, Microsoft has made it nearly impossible to do so in order to 
quell the MP3 format as competition to it's own music streaming 
initiative.
    On the internet, Microsoft is making many attempts to impose 
standards and technologies that run only on the Windows platform. A 
very good example of this is NBC. Any MSNBC, NBC network or NBC 
affiliate web site that has any sort of streaming media content will 
not play on the Macintosh platform even though there is no technical 
reason for such a limitation, Windows Media Player does work on the 
Mac after all--and that is what is being used on these web 
sites. It is apparently, strictly a marketing decision to limit the 
streaming media to Windows only.
    My fear is that unless there is a real resolution that has real 
teeth In it that Microsoft cannot slither its way around, their 
conduct will continue to be unchecked, they will continue to do 
business as they always have. I fear an internet that is closed off 
to everybody who isn't using Windows. I fear any other platform 
being forced to either conform to Microsoft or be put out of 
business.
    Right now, Microsoft has far too much power and control over the 
computing environment. I find myself having to dig through the 
morass of Windows only products and services in search of the few 
Macintosh products out there. Go into any major computer retailer 
and it is all Windows. The Macintosh retailers are few and far 
between. Many of the services out on the internet are Windows only 
primarily because the developer has chosen to use a Microsoft 
development product that, of course, only supports Windows users. 
These developers make these choices often out of fear of Microsoft.
    No one entity should ever have so much control that they can 
dictate the market thus, dictate our range of choices. As it is 
right now, it is getting very close to the point where it is 
Microsoft's way or no way. This is ethically and morally wrong.
    During the whole Anti-trust trial against Microsoft and the very 
strong judgment against them, I had counted on the Justice 
Department to do its job and put a stop to Microsoft's predatory and 
illegal business practices. Then Bush got elected and I knew all of 
that was over. Microsoft will, at best, get a light slap on the 
wrist in the form of some consent decree that was so full of loop 
holes that they would be able to just move on unimpeded.
    The so-called proposal Microsoft has put forward is not only the 
very piece of swiss cheese I feared but, actually has the audacity 
to include a mechanism that actually increases their stronghold on 
the computing world by making schools dependent on Microsoft 
products and services. It's the old marketing strategy of giving 
away the razor handle for free and making all the money on the 
blades.
    I implore my government to do its job and put a stop--for 
real--to Microsoft's predatory and opportunistic business 
practices and to re-level the playing field so real competition can 
once again exist in the computer platform market.
    Thank you for your time,
    Jeffrey J. Knapp
    [email protected]
    Www.jkdigital.com



MTC-00024947

From: Stan Liebowitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to state that I believe the current proposed remedy 
is reasonable in that it prevents Microsoft from using exclusionary 
contracts while not harming consumers by fragmenting a market that 
they prefer to remain intact, as did some other proposed remedies 
including that of Judge Jackson. Nor does the current remedy reward 
Microsoft's competitors by hobbling Microsoft's pro-competitive 
behavior, as other proposed remedies would do.
    Although Microsoft may have stepped over the bounds with its 
contracts, those contracts had little to do with its success, or 
more importantly, with the failure of its competitors, including 
Netscape. As my co-author, Stephen Margolis, and myself demonstrate 
at length in our book: ``Winners, Losers & Microsoft'' 
Internet Explorer was a better browser (Microsoft's economist 
witness misspoke on this issue when he stated that there was little 
difference between the two-our work was more thorough than his) and 
as we also demonstrated, large shifts in market share routinely 
occurred when a new product was acknowledged to be of higher 
quality, whether it was Microsoft's or someone else's.
    Additionally, Microsoft's overall market behavior has been 
beneficial to consumers. Microsoft is largely responsible for the 
large decrease in software prices that occurred throughout the 
1990s, and is also demonstrated in our book. For an examination of 
software markets that went well beyond the scope of the trial, in 
order to see the forest through the trees, I suggest that you read 
our book. Lest you think that we are merely apologists for 
Microsoft, I note that we have been propounding the ideas put 
forward in the book for over a decade in leading academic journals, 
well before the Microsoft case arose or could even be imagined.
    Since Microsoft's illegal behavior had little to do with its 
success, the remedy should be to prevent that behavior but not to 
reward its competitors who failed to succeed in the marketplace due 
to their own missteps. The current remedy does just that. It would 
be wrong to punish Microsoft merely because Microsoft's competitors 
wished to weaken competition in the market, as they clearly do. Why 
else would companies like Sun, which does not have any products in 
the Windows universe, be so intent on a more ``punishing'' 
remedy. Sun has no interest in seeing the Windows/Intel market do 
well, or for more vibrant competition to occur in that market. It 
merely wants less competition in the market for workstations and 
servers, a market that did not play a role in the case since 
Microsoft is not the dominant player there. Antitrust should not be 
allowed to be the handmaiden of attempts to subvert competition.
    Stan Liebowitz
    Professor of Managerial Economics
    University of Texas at Dallas
    972-883-2807, fax 972-883-2818



MTC-00024948

From: Kevin Ahern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi:
    I'm writing to indicate my displeasure with the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. It will allow the Microsoft monopoly to not 
only continue, but to flourish. The Department of Justice needs to 
rethink its policy and put real teeth in the settlement--not 
what has been done to date.
    Kevin Ahern
    Dr. Kevin Ahern, Contributing Editor, Science Magazine
    Senior Instructor
    Department of Biochemistry & Biophysics

[[Page 27557]]

    Oregon State University
    Corvallis, OR 97331
    Voice--541-737-2305
    ***Note New [email protected]
    Web--http://www.davincipress.com



MTC-00024949

From: Doreen Stokes
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: ``tormist(a)ag.state.ia.us''
January 25, 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 hope that you will reconsider the decision to settle the 
United States Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit against 
Microsoft Corporation. American consumers may have been overcharged 
$20 billion by the Microsoft monopoly. Your agreement with Bill 
Gates'' company does nothing to rectify past sins by this 
company or protect against future gauging.
    As you know, at least ten consumer groups disagree with your 
agreement to settle. Microsoft has little incentive to change any of 
its practices. Their concessions are insignificant. I am proud that 
my state's Attorney General, Tom Miller, rejected this Microsoft 
agreement. I believe that Mr. Miller and the other eight state 
attorneys general see the many loopholes and problems with 
enforcement that does little to affect change in the computer 
software industry. Splitting Microsoft into two or three companies 
may not be the proper response, but neither is this.
    Your decision to prematurely end litigation against Microsoft is 
a mistake. The agreement offers no real incentive to stop 
monopolistic, anti-trust efforts. It won't help much smaller 
companies compete and it doesn't serve the American consumer. I ask 
that you continue to go after Microsoft. It is a duty of the Justice 
Department to protect the average citizen from companies that have 
grown too large and too powerful by questionable business practices.
    Sincerely,
    Doreen Stokes
    3609 Wolcott Avenue
    Des Moines, Iowa 50321
    CC: Iowa Attorney General
    US Dept of Justice
    [email protected]
    Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller
    [email protected]
    Barb Hildebrandt
    [email protected]



MTC-00024950

From: Joseph Ingraffia
To: Microsoft ATR,Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Netw...
Date: 1/25/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft
    Microsoft can only harm themselves by not innovating and 
overcharging customers.



MTC-00024951

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    It is my humble opinion that the terms of the settlement are 
fair and reasonable to all parties, and exceed the ruling of the 
Court of Appeals. It is important to our economy that this matter be 
settled promptly and the industry and Microsoft to move forward.
    Sincerely,
    George Whitbeck



MTC-00024952

From: Nathaniel Pendleton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I must agree with the finding of fact from US v. Microsoft 2001, 
and Messers Litan, Noll and Nordhaus, http://
www.antitrustinstitute.org/recent/162.pdf that Microsoft has 
violated Section 2 of the Sherman antitrust act, to illegally crush, 
and will continue to illegally crush, commercial competitors.
    Microsoft anti-competitive activity damages the pace of growth, 
by closing and poisoning standards, to maximize Microsoft's return. 
Even poising previous Microsoft product standards with 
incompatibility forces many consumers to upgrade or loose access to 
a large install base of current users/applications.
    Microsoft is very effective at bridling growth of choice with 
its install base.
    Ironically, Open Standards fueled the growth of the internet and 
information age by creating larger install base for network 
economies, quietly handling email, and webpages across the net. We 
must return to, or in some cases reinforce, Open Standards, to fuel 
choice and price wars.
    Microsoft's one way street for importing open standard data, but 
rarely providing adequate export formats other than proprietary save 
formats, is preventing users from having alternative choices. Even 
upgrade of Microsoft products is complicated by incompatible closed 
and obscure file formats from previous versions of Microsoft 
products.
    But Microsoft's denial of OS and office tools choice, further 
perpetuates network economy dominance/install base, spurring yet 
more opportunity for Microsoft to maintain its control of core 
technologies and add outlying technologies, avoiding price wars, 
with competitors through tying ensuring license fees, and furthering 
its control and its dominant role.
    Open Standards could again fuel growth by distributing 
opportunity and control with OS development, application 
development, and portable data formats. This is not a new trend.
    Take for example, TV footage from the 1968 and 1972 Presidential 
Campaigns, which was closed format and hardware. Most of footage is 
inaccessible or gone, lost from the historical record, due to 
technological change.
    But in Microsoft's case, we are not loosing access via obscure 
hardware, because open hardware standards have created compatibility 
and affordability. We are loosing data access due to arbitrary 
format changes each software generation by Microsoft.
    Computer data can and should be like my boxes of college text 
books, that I still open and read from for references or pleasure. 
But Microsoft's closed or poisoned standards will block access to 
our nations historical record.
    Much like NPR's ``Lost and Found Sound'' only highly 
paid experts will be able to access historical information by 
carefully maintained old hardware and old software, will we be able 
to open obscure Microsoft's data formats such as MS Word's data 
buffer dump called ``quick saves.''
    This is a yet higher invisible price to pay for Microsoft 
dominance. Breaking up Microsoft would force a rebirth of Open 
Standards and spurring real growth and competition in the proposed 
Baby-Microsoft's, Linux/GNU, MacOS, PalmOS, and even Java.
    Open Standards built the internet. Fueling explosive growth in 
sharing of information and services. Let open standards out of the 
corner that Microsoft is trying to push them.
    Let portable middleware, APIs and exchange formats flourish, and 
truly see the fabled convergence that we promised actually come 
rushing in.
    Reject the settlement for one with real teeth, break up the 
company. Separate Windows OS from applications such as Office and 
Internet Explorer.
    Nathaniel Pendleton
    5012 45th St. NW
    Washington DC 20016



MTC-00024953

From: James Duncan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
RE: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    Microsoft has been and is out of control. Their plans for the 
next few years, including the .NET initiative, blatantly leverage 
their ongoing monopoly status.
    I'm voting with my feet.: I'm a contract systems administrator 
who has used mostly Microsoft applications and operating systems 
since that's what most businesses are in effect forced to use. I've 
grown concerned with Microsoft's attitude and policy initiatives. My 
New Year's resolution was to absolutely reduce my dependence and 
that of my clients on Microsoft products. Such migrations can be 
extremely difficult since most overall development has had to be 
focused on Microsoft compatible applications.
    I urge more careful consideration of all Microsoft settlements.
    Thank you,
    James Duncan
    [email protected]
    Scotts Valley, CA 95066



MTC-00024954

From: Helchie Charles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:22pm
Subject:
    After the horrible attacks of September 11th I believe that this 
country needs to start

[[Page 27558]]

uniting and supporting American based companies. We need to return 
honor to this nation not litigation. Our success is necessary on all 
fronts especially technology.
    Hopefully, the court and the DOJ will back Microsoft in settling 
this political case once and for all. It would be nice to see the 
competitors all unite to start working on great technology instead 
of trying to create legal smoke screens to fog great visions for our 
future. Long live the American freedom to work hard and succeed not 
hire a lawyer. Please settle this mess and let Microsoft get on with 
it.
    Thank you for your time.
    Helen Charles



MTC-00024955

From: Karen Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Karen Thompson
2520 Oakes Avenue
Anacortes, WA 98221
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing you today to voice my opinion on Microsoft. I am a 
Microsoft supporter, and I support the settlement that was reached 
in November. This settlement is fair, and I am anxious to see this 
three-year-long dispute resolved. There are bigger fish to fry at 
the present time.
    The settlement that was reached in November is sufficient to 
deal with the issues of this lawsuit. Microsoft has agreed to carry 
out all provisions in this agreement. Under this agreement, 
Microsoft must grant computer makers the right to configure Windows 
in promote non-Microsoft software programs that compete with 
programs included within Windows. Microsoft also agreed to license 
its Windows operating system to the 20 major computer makers for an 
identical price. This settlement will benefit the entire technology 
industry.
    I urge you to support this settlement. This settlement will 
serve in the best public interest. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Karen Thompson



MTC-00024956

From: Gary L. Vandenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It Concerns,
    Please finish the Microsoft settlement as it has been proposed. 
Microsoft is one of America's competitive assets in the world 
economy. It needs to be able to focus on business without more 
delays and legal proceedings.
    Thank you.
    Gary L. Vandenberg
    Real Estate Solutions/1031 INC
    1031 Lake Drive, SE
    Grand Rapids, MI 49506
    Ph 616-774-1031



MTC-00024957

From: Marlene Morley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This Email is to let you know that I agree with the statements 
made regarding the proposed Microsoft settlement at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html as well as the content on http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/ --
    Marlene Morley
    Linux Administrator
    Hypernet Communications
    Website: http://www.hyperusa.com/
    Email: [email protected]
    hyperusa.com



MTC-00024959

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
2903 116th Avenue, NE
Lake Stevens, Washington 98258
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to start off by saying that I am not a strong 
supporter of Microsoft. I don't really have any stong ties to them, 
but I don't agree with the antitrust suit against them. The 
settlement that was made between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice is more than fair, and it is time this matter was over with. 
Millions of state and federal dollars have been wasted on this suit. 
The United States is based upon a free enterprise system; while we 
may not always agree with the tactics employed by big business, our 
interference in business undermines the very foundation this nation 
has been built upon.
    Microsoft has agreed to terms that will enable other companies 
to compete. They have to license the internal codes of Windows to 
the top twenty companies so they can produce software that is 
compatible with Windows.
    Because of the competition that will arise from this settlement 
a wider variety of products will emerge. So now, not only will the 
consumer have a better product, but the prices will be more 
reasonable. Also, Microsoft will be forced to produce a better 
product in order to stay competitive.
    I would like to reiterate that I am not writing this letter 
because the issue is personal to me. I am not a huge stockholder and 
I know no one who works for Microsoft. I do know what is right 
though, and ending this ridiculous suit against Microsoft is the 
right thing to do. Thank-you.
    Sincerely,
    Carl Carlsen



MTC-00024960

From: Calia, Maryann
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 4:23pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January25,2002
RE: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The case of United States v. Microsoft has been a challenge and 
an opportunity for both the high tech industry and the American 
consumer. New and innovative solutions for resolving such a dispute 
were paramount in coming to a settlement. The continuation of 
sanctions on Microsoft to foster greater competition in the software 
industry, as well as allowing Microsoft to remain a viable company 
has resulted in a benefit for the consumer as well as for the 
industry. Protecting the consumer and encouraging the creation of 
new and effective products is always essential in a healthy free 
economy.
    The settlement that the United States has negotiated with 
Microsoft is in our nation's best interest. It comes at a critical 
time in our economic recovery when our nation needs more 
reconciliation than confrontation. I am encouraged by the action of 
the Department of Justice and support the efforts to settle this 
case.
    Very truly yours,
    SALVATORE F. DIMASI
    Majority Leader
    Massachusetts House of Representatives



MTC-00024961

From: Myroslaw Ryndyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor:
Myroslaw Ryndyk
250 Velarde Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
    As a citizen of this country, a customer and user of high tech 
products and as a career member of the high tech industry(over 30 
years as a software engineer), I want to register my concern about 
the Proposed Final Judgement(PFJ) in the Microsoft case.
    This case has been tried at the Federal District Court level and 
reviewed at Federal District Court of Appeals. It has been stated by 
the Appeals Court that Microsoft had aggressively and repeatedly 
violated United States antitrust laws. Further, the Appeals Court 
has stated that any settlement between the Government and Microsoft 
must protect members of the technology industry and the general 
public by ensuring that any such settlement contain the following 
three elements: (1) it must terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly, 
(2) it must deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past violations and 
(3) it must prevent any future anticompetitive activity.
    From what I have been reading in the press and other sources, it 
appears that the PFJ falls woefully short on providing those 
protections:
    1. It does not end Microsoft's monopoly and even allows 
Microsoft to expand its monopoly into other technology markets.
    2. It does not adequately address anticompetitive behavior 
identified by the Appeals Court.

[[Page 27559]]

    3. It incorporates such large loopholes to its enforcement 
provisions as to render enforcement meaningless.
    4. It does not provide an effective enforcement mechanism for 
the weak restrictions it does implement.
    5. It does not deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past 
statutory violations. I have watched Microsoft use its predatory 
monopolistic position to stifle any new product development by 
potential competitors that might challenge its preeminent position. 
That activity deprived me, and thousands, if not millions, of other 
potential users of access to new and innovative products and forced 
us to, either do without those products, or to rely on less adequate 
Microsoft substitutes.
    It was my fervent hope that the antitrust action by the 
Department of Justice(DOJ) would reel in this predatory behemoth. 
The PFJ does NOT meet the standards enumerated by the Appeals Court. 
I strongly, and respectfully, ask that the Court rule against the 
PFJ, and, since it's unlikely that further negotiations between the 
DOJ and Microsoft will produce an agreement that provides the type 
of protection that the Appeals Court stipulated, I respectfully 
suggest that Court render a decision based on the trial evidence and 
the decisions of both the original Federal District Court and the 
Court of Appeals.
    Thank you.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00024962

From: Marc Tramonte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has worked for 25 years to secure a strong but hardly 
invulnerable position in the computer industry. As long as Apple, 
Linux, Solaris X86, FreeBSD, dedicated computing devices, and other 
options exist--by free choice and to anyone as it is 
today--the very notion of ``monopoly'' here is 
fundamentally flawed.
    Even if we accept the spectacularly narrow market definition 
crafted for this case, and accept that Microsoft dominates it, the 
range of substitute platforms and products and the lightning-fast 
pace of change in the industry render it meaningless. Windows is a 
proprietary product, by one company, that took 10 years of hard work 
to perfect--not an essential service or raw material of finite 
supply that can be monopolized.
    The subtext of the entire case seemed to be ``new entrants 
deserve to win.'' I disagree. Let them work for 25 years and 
suffer the slings and arrows if need be, and accomplish their own 
success the old-fashioned way: Please millions of customers. Fight 
for it. Earn it. Like Microsoft did. It's hard, but there is 
precedent.
    With all that said, the settlement is a fair compromise given 
the harsh realities of the situation, and I fully support its 
acceptance. I hope the judge does okay it and finally puts this case 
to rest.



MTC-00024963

From: Beth Epperson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Hello,
    As you can see from my email address, I work for Netscape. Even 
though I am a Netscape employee, I believe that I have an open and 
objective attitude about fair business practices, ethical conduct 
and the need to move ones business into new directions.
    When the web began to excel and expand beyond government and 
academia, I do not believe anyone had the vision that it would be as 
widespread as it has become. The web has provided more exposure and 
access to so many people around the world, it has indeed been one of 
the most influential tools of the century. From a business 
perspective, the exposure is overwhelming, you can reach literally 
thousands of households with minimal expense. It has truly changed 
the way we do business.
    The most difficult aspect of the web is how to generate revenue. 
Looking at the culture of business on the web, it is in direct 
opposition to how we have traditionally done business. In the past, 
if you wanted or needed a service, you paid for it. The service 
provider set the price and you were at their mercy. Advertisement 
was not a true revenue generator, companies spent thousands of 
dollars per year in getting their brand out to the public. Instead, 
advertisement was an evil necessity, necessary to the survival of 
any company. Today, on the web, services are for free, software is 
free, and many other services that were traditionally revenue 
generators. Advertisement is a revenue generator, however, 
advertisements are not for your company, but for other companies on 
your web site, that is a very dramatic change. Could you imagine 
25-30 years ago, getting a brochure in the mail from company 
XYZ, only to see advertisements in that brochure for companies ABC 
and DEF? That would just not have happened.
    I think in the beginning, Microsoft didn't see the advantages of 
this new web thing. I think they saw it, analyzed it and walked 
away. Then the web began to evolve. Numerous companies sprang up 
based solely on the activities and services--browsing, email, 
data exchange, etc. AOL, Compuserve, Netscape are just a few of the 
companies that began to grow and expand. I think that is about the 
time Microsoft figured out that there was money to be had, but 
didn't quite know how to get that to happen. The traditional 
business methodology was not there. Advertising was different, 
software applications were different, the audience was different, 
just about everything was different. Netscape at that time had a 
firm hold on the browser market, and that was our sole source of 
revenue--the browser, the web server software and advertisement 
revenue on our site. Microsoft threw hundreds of people into 
building a browser that would compete--not necessarily to 
promote competition, but rather to keep people in their market 
place. But, Netscape continued to dominate the market. At that point 
in time is where I think Microsoft pursued the path of poor business 
ethics, they lowered themselves to a level of dirty deeds and 
actions. If they could not gain market share by creating a superior 
product, then they would do whatever they had to to run Netscape out 
of business. And with that task in hand, they did an excellent job.
    What I really don't understand, is how do the people who made 
that conscious decision sleep at night. To lower oneself to perform 
in such a manner is beyond my comprehension. Should Microsoft be 
sanctioned for their business practices, yes I believe they should. 
Would I fine them, no. Would I make them remove applications from 
their desktop, no. Would I force them to provide alternative 
software in their bundles, no. What I would do, however, is force 
them to make their operating system open, accessible and free. Allow 
all software companies access to the operating system, allowing for 
greater flexibility and freedom for all users of windows. This would 
allow companies such as Dell, Compac, Apple to provide software 
bundles of varying content. It would allow companies such as 
Netscape to finely integrate with the operating system. This would 
prevent Microsoft from hiding worms and performance bugs into their 
operating system that is only triggered via non-Microsoft products. 
This would allow users to pick and modify the desired software found 
on each persons desktop. Let the operating system be open and let 
the specific application software be revenue driven.
    Thank you for letting me air my concerns.
    Regards,
    Beth Epperson



MTC-00024964

From: Anne DeBlois
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I am glad that the DOJ and Microsoft reached an out-of-court 
settlement. However, as a consumer, I would like you to know that I 
have never ever approved of such an antitrust trial against 
Microsoft from the very beginning. Netscape's failure was somehow my 
own fault, as I did elect to give it up and install Internet 
Explorer on my own computer. I wish there had been no trial at all, 
actually. I feel that nobody ever listened to me. Rivals talked, 
antitrust experts talked, lawyers talked, but what about consumers? 
What about me? What about MY own choice of software? What about my 
desire for an unedited Windows XP, because I love it like it is? 
What about those who won't even think of buying a version of Windows 
that doesn't include all the stuff they want (Media Player, Internet 
Explorer and so forth)?
    I never felt harmed in any way by Microsoft. On the contrary, I 
could learn to use a computer very easily thanks to Windows 95. 
Because of my interest in computers, I then chose to make it a 
profession, and I found absolutely nothing wrong in Microsoft 
software, otherwise I would not be using anything from Microsoft 
today.
    I still believe that Microsoft is innocent, and I don't want any 
ruling to hurt the company, as it would also hurt hundreds of 
businesses that rely on Microsoft's great technology, it would also 
cause even more job layoffs in the high-tech field.

[[Page 27560]]

    I still believe that the marketplace and consumer choice, not 
Microsoft, sank Netscape and other companies, and I still believe 
Microsoft has nothing to do with some rivals'' failure. For 
instance, while the trial was underway, I could download a few 
updates of Microsoft Internet Explorer, but Netscape Navigator, 
although it was acquired by AOL, did not improve as well as I wanted 
it to. THAT is why I gave up Navigator. I don't want Microsoft to 
pay for Navigator's lack of features.
    Please don't forget us consumers! Please keep in mind that we 
might be hurt by anything you may want to impose on Microsoft. It is 
not only a matter of triple damages or something, it is a matter of 
consumer choice and public interest. I don't want corporate greed to 
win over software quality. I don't want companies like AOL and Sun 
to be paid millions of dollars while the high-tech industry suffers 
from that cash flow. Please let Microsoft alone, they are one of 
your best corporate citizens, no courtroom must kill America's best.
    Best regards,
    Anne DeBlois, from Canada
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00024965

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:24pm
Subject: opposing the proposed Microsoft settlement
    I would like to express my disapproval of the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust suit.
    As I see it, Microsoft was found guilty of using its monopoly of 
the desktop to create a near monopoly of the browser. This was done 
in spite of the earlier consent agreement where Microsoft agreed to 
end ``tying'' other products to the desktop. Microsofts 
actions have shown that it is not trustworthy.
    The proposed settlement essentially has Microsoft agreeing not 
to repeat their illeagal behavior, not to use their desktop monopoly 
to leverage browsers. This is closing the door after the horse has 
escaped. Micorsoft has won the browser war by their illegal 
activities. Microsoft is now turning its attention to the internet 
through the .NET venture and to entertainment through its Windows 
Media Player venture. In both of these Microsoft appears to be using 
its Monopoly on the desktop to impost a standard on the industry. 
History has shown that a Microsoft de facto standard soon morphs 
into a Microsoft only standard. The Monopoly extends. The proposed 
settlement does require Microsoft to share some of their programers 
interfaces, or API's. However, the ``sharing'' is done 
strictly under Microsofts terms. A better solution is for Microsoft 
to be required to publish, in open literature, these APIs without 
use restrictions and agree not to change them before giving ample 
notice to competitors. The proposed settlement also ignores 
Microsofts other monopoly, the Office applications (Word, Excel, 
Powerpoint, Access). Microsoft uses the office upgrade cycle to lock 
out competition by changing file specifications each upgrade. This 
prevents competing products from being compatible with Office. Any 
settlement that intends to prevent future exploitation of Microsofts 
monopoly needs to address this. At a minimum, Microsoft should be 
required to do with Office what they are required to do with 
Windows, release the programers interfaces. Better would be to 
require that Microsoft publish the API's and file specifications in 
the open literature so that competitors can create innovative but 
compatible products.
    I urge the government and the court to reject the proposed 
settlement and rejoin negotiation with Microsoft and the states 
involved in the suit to propose a meaningful consequence to 
Microsofts illegal activities.
    George Wolter
    565 Gibbs St.
    Whitehall, MI 49461



MTC-00024966

From: nanikin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings:
    The proposed settlement, if allowed to stand, will give 
Microsoft unprecedented access to the minds and pocketbooks of our 
children for decades to come. Do NOT allow this multi-headed snake 
of a corporation to slither its way out of a just and fair outcome, 
by letting it ``contribute'' Microsoft products and 
services to educational institutions. Any in-kind settlement MUST 
include free choice of software platforms, or even a mandated mix of 
non-Microsoft products, by the intended beneficiaries.
    It's bad enough that some of the most interesting sites on the 
Internet are rapidly becoming inaccessible unless you are using 
MSIE. I've maintained a Microsoft-free home for many years and 
intend to keep it that way as long as I possibly can.
    Thank you.
    Nancy Hoffarth



MTC-00024967

From: John Dowd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Below is an article excerpted from the ZDNet News a magazine 
that has been continually anti-MSFT in its editorial bias. Even they 
see the frivolousness and pointlessness of AOL's latest foray into 
this matter. This suit is not about consumers as their has been no 
harm to consumers demonstrated rather there is only the speculation 
of possible future harm. If that is the rule to which a company is 
to be held who would stand up under this benchmark? This whole thing 
is an effort on the part of MSFT's competitors to win in the halls 
of government what they couldn't win in the market place. They want 
to use the government to enrich themselves without bringing better 
products to the market place. It is really disgusting to find my 
government not being smart enough to see that it is being 
manipulated by losers.
    Sincerely,
    John F. Dowd
    Commentary
    Advice to AOL: Sit down, shut up
    By David Coursey
    AnchorDesk
    January 24, 2002, 5:20 AM PT
    COMMENTARY--AOL Time Warner's decision to sue 
Microsoft--essentially repeating the federal antitrust case all 
over again--is hardly surprising. Yet I had hoped that instead 
of wallowing in the past, Chairman Steve Case and his East Coasters 
would realize that Netscape lost the browser war because it deserved 
to lose. And Netscape has continued losing, because AOL Time Warner 
hasn't done very much to make it a winner--perhaps in a cynical 
attempt to maintain a cause of action against Microsoft.
    Did Microsoft play hardball with Netscape? Of course it did. Did 
Microsoft go over the line of legality in certain business 
practices? That's what a federal court has ruled, and the Justice 
Department has agreed to settle. Is that settlement enough? I don't 
think so and have already called for stiffer sanctions. But should 
AOL Time Warner sit down and shut up? Damn straight.
    THE NEW LAWSUIT seems to have been filed for the valid reason 
that the proposed settlement doesn't go far enough. But another 
decade of legal battles--kept alive by East Coast corporate 
types dueling people from Washington state--won't improve the 
situation. AOL Time Warner should push for a better settlement, but 
opting for endless court actions to settle issues long in the past 
doesn't seem right.
    Indeed, Netscape should have sued years ago, and its 
case--like the federal one--should be winding its way down 
rather than just getting started.
    I am sure it must be galling for Steve Case and whatever part of 
Netscape's soul that survived assimilation into AOL (and again into 
Time Warner) to see Microsoft enjoying a resurgence.
    BUT THE FACT REMAINS that since AOL has owned Netscape, it has 
used its own mighty resources--more subscribers than 
Microsoft's MSN--and its ability to swing deals with hardware 
OEMs to very little effect.
    Netscape went off into its ill-advised Mozilla open-source 
effort and has released new versions of its browser that failed to 
ignite the market. As I remember, the Netscape 6 reviews pretty much 
said that Microsoft had the better browser.
    So if it seems like AOL Time Warner has been swimming upstream, 
it's not all Microsoft's fault. Again stipulating--I love 
getting into this Perry Mason stuff--that Microsoft violated 
antitrust laws and should be punished, the real reason Netscape 
failed is very simple: customers.
    I AM AMAZED that people still debate this, though I think it's 
mostly from an unwillingness to concede any point to the hated 
Microsoft, but the browser really does belong as part of an 
operating system. Indeed, browser technology (along with look and 
feel) has provided a common user interface and way of doing things. 
Tying the browser to the operating system, as Microsoft has done, 
has made computing easier for all of us.
    Microsoft was right to bring browsing into the OS, just as it is 
right to better support multimedia and photography, home video,

[[Page 27561]]

and soon, broadcast television. Does doing this compete with 
companies that build stand-alone applications? Of course it does.
    But what those companies are supposed to do is create better 
products that extend and enhance what Microsoft builds into Windows. 
What Netscape did--actually what AOL did to Netscape--was 
throw in the towel. That, or the battle just wasn't winnable, not so 
much because of Microsoft, but because Netscape/AOL Time Warner 
didn't offer customers anything they really wanted--other than 
an alternative to Microsoft, and that argument seemed to fall on 
deaf ears.
    If AOL had run the Netscape business to compete, things might be 
different today. Instead, AOL turned the shell of Netscape into a 
media company with just enough development around to maintain the 
fa?ade of being a software company. AOL is many things, after all, 
but one of the things it's not is a software company.
    Suppose AOL had invested heavily in the Netscape server 
businesses or had sold it to someone who would? Maybe things would 
be different today, as Netscape browsers used cool features 
available only from Netscape servers and Microsoft was left in the 
dust.
    MAYBE NETSCAPE AND SUN could have done something more important 
with Java. Or perhaps the Novell/Sun/Netscape alliance could have 
gone somewhere. Perhaps if Netscape had been given the resources to 
fight on, things would be very different today.
    I doubt it. Which is why I think Netscape has gone the way it 
has. Customers voted, and they voted for Microsoft. Were they pushed 
a bit by Microsoft's illegal practices? Surely, though not as much 
as I think Microsoft's critics want to believe.
    AOL Time Warner has every right to sue, and the case is not 
without merit. But I hope this new lawsuit is more a ploy to get a 
better settlement in the federal case--which is 
warranted--than a means to prolong this battle indefinitely.
    But if AOL Time Warner wants to battle over what Microsoft did 
to Netscape, then the case ought to at least figure in what AOL 
itself did to the once high-flying browser pioneer.



MTC-00024968

From: Alexander Wallace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a terrible setlement, you are letting MS buy this one!



MTC-00024969

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:25pm
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,
    Nancy Wheeler
    2176 Morgans Mill Rd.
    Goodview, VA 24095-2767



MTC-00024970

From: bert hunsicker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to have the DOJ accept the settlement with 
Microsoft and put this whole thing to rest.
    In the first place, I think it is wrong to prosecute MS as a 
monopoly. I am old enough to know that the original reason for 
creating laws to protect the public against monopolies was because 
of the harm they could do to the public. I truly believe that MS has 
done more for the public than any other company in the US. They have 
kept the price of software down to where it is affordable by 
millions of people instead of just the wealthy. An examination of 
the primary complainers against MS, namely Sun, AOL/Time Warner, and 
Apple are all who stand to gain a great deal if the government 
continues to attack MS. Take a look at Sun and see if they would 
sell their operating system for $100. and the same goes for Apple. 
The reason they don't compete well with MS is that they want to ROB 
the masses with much higher prices for their product.
    I find it ridiculous to think that MS has no competition. Unix 
has been around a very long time as well as Sun and they are 
competitors. Now there is Red Hat or Linux and AOL/Time Warner is 
attempting to buy them so they can compete with Windows as an 
operating system. They paid several Billion dollars for Netscape so 
I don't think they truly believe they are unable to compete against 
MS. I put my money where it will do me the most good and that is 
with Windows by MS. If these others would come up with a good 
product and keep the price competitive with Windows and other 
programs by MS, I would certainly consider purchasing from them, but 
I won't hold my breath as I don't think they are capable of doing 
anything but bitching about how they are being treated so poorly 
now.
    This whole case has done nothing good for anyone except the 
Lawyers who live for these cases to come along and the Justice 
Department is wasting the taxpayers money to continue the case. 
Penfield Jackson should be disbarred for his so obvious prejudice in 
his mishandling of the case to start with. Why should he be trusted 
with any other cases?
    I could go on at great length, but suffice it to say that I 
think this should be ended now and let the courts get on with some 
real business instead of being used by the complainants. As far as 
the states who don't want to settle, all they want is a free ride 
and a bucket full of money.
    Bert Hunsicker
    8933 East 62nd Court
    Tulsa, OK 74133-6362 (
    918)459-9533
    [email protected]



MTC-00024971

From: Noel Holshouser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen of the United States of America, a former teacher 
and an independent computer consultant, I find the proposed 
settlement objectionable. We who have had to attempt to work in 
environments containing Microsoft Windows have long suffered from 
their reliance on hidden, undocumented ``hooks'' into 
their operating system. The proposed settlement will do very little 
if anything to alleviate this. Rather than decreasing the 
monopolistic position, this settlement will strengthen Microsoft's 
dominance in one of the few areas where it doesn't already have such 
position.
    Noel Holshouser--Independent Consultant
    Plain Dealing, LA



MTC-00024972

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I have multiple concerns regarding MS and any settlement. I have 
yet to hear any plausible, sincere expression of *contrition* from 
MS, despite the judgement against them. I believe any punishment 
should fit the crime. Since the judgement will not be reversed, any 
punishment or ``settlement'' needs to address past, 
present, and potential future transgressions. I don't think it 
plausible that MS would be ``punished'' by any attempt at 
a (even a well-intentioned) ``behavior-modification-
based'' remedy, certainly not by one that actually EXTENDS 
their (monopolistically gained) marketshare.
    Although it is unlikely given the current political climate, 
(and not precluded by the Appeals Court), I still wish and believe 
that a split-up MS would be an appropriate punishment because I 
believe that would create actual (both OS and application) 
competition amongst the industry players (Apple, Oracle, Netscape, 
OSF, etc.).
    Isn't that what an anti-trust punishment SHOULD do? Souldn't any 
punishment/settlement be meet (at least) this test? Unless the 
punishment is --actually-- painfull MS will be emboldened 
to continue to propagate software that makes it easy for some 
disgruntled teenager (or terrorist) from even a ``third-
world'' location to infect/damage/commandeer-for-unsavory-
purpose thousands of (private and public) machines world-wide (some 
owners of which could (still) be ignorant/unable/apathetic). --
    Dave Bradley



MTC-00024973

From: Donahue, Christopher
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''

[[Page 27562]]

Date: 1/25/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom This May Concern:
    I believe that the terms of the settlement are tough on 
Microsoft and may hurt it's revenues. This company has been an 
innovator in the technology field and has played a key part in the 
technology revolution. The settlements are fair and reasonable to 
all parties, and meet--or go beyond--the ruling by the 
Court of Appeals, and represent the best opportunity for Microsoft, 
the industry and the economy to move forward.
    Thanks for your time in this matter,
    Christopher J. Donahue
    Pfizer Global Research and Development
    Discovery Technologies
    Assay Development
    2800 Plymouth Road
    Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
    734-622-1473 phone
    734-622-3244fax
    [email protected]



MTC-00024974

From: James Voorhees
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement should be rejected. I suggest four 
grounds for doing so. First, the settlement does nothing to undo the 
damange done by Microsoft in the course of gaining iand then 
maintaining ts monopoly. It gained that monopoly in part through 
practices that were uncompetitive.
    Second, the provisions for enforcement are inadequate. Should 
Microsoft be found in violation of the settlement, recourse seems to 
be, in essence, a continuation of the lengthy legal procedure that 
has characterized the case thus far. The sanctions Microsoft would 
face if it violated the judgement should be made more explicit. At 
the least, a finite procedure should be made explicit.
    Third, the Internal Compliance Officer, as an employee of 
Microsoft, is more than likely to serve, not as a good faith 
proponent of the settlement, but as Microsoft's apologist to the 
Plaintiffs, the technical Committee, and the court, explaining why 
Microsoft followed the letter of the judgement while violating its 
spirit. This, I believe, follows from Microsoft's corporate culture. 
It is a central principle of software quality assurance that the 
person who determines whether a project or program is following the 
processes and procedures it needs to cannot be paid by or otherwise 
beholden to that project or program. The Internal Compliance 
Officer, in essence, serves to assure the quality of the final 
judgement. The same principle should apply.
    Fourth, the selection of the technical committee is biased in 
Microsoft's favor. In the first place, the criteria for excluding 
people from consideration are too broad. Given Microsoft's broad 
reach across the information technology industries, how many 
qualified technical experts are there who have not worked for a 
competitor, given a broad definition of the term 
``competitor,'' and giventhat Microsoft, having the right 
to object, can use the broadest of definitions if it chooses to? Is 
it in the public's interest that this possibility be open? Is it in 
the public interest that Microsoft have the right to select one 
member, the right to object to another, and an indirect veto 
(through its chosen member) of the appiointment of the third?
    Please understand that I am not inherently against Microsoft. 
Indeed, I make my career largely through Microsoft products. But, as 
I have explained, I dod not believe the proposed judgement serves 
the public's interest.
    James Voorhees MCSE, MCP+I, MCP



MTC-00024991

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:30pm
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,
    Barb Crow
    1144 N Kokomo
    Derby, KS 67037



MTC-00024992

From: James E Jurach Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. I would like to 
echo the comments made by Jeremy P. White at http://
www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunneywine.html and those of Dan Kegel at 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Sincerely,
    James Jurach, Texas; Developer, Online Banking Services company



MTC-00024994

From: kate.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settling is a horrible idea, prosecute their monopolistic selves 
until they allow free market competition.
    While I believe strongly that their products are unreliable and 
shoddy enough to drive them out of business on merit alone, their 
market share forbids this and they strive to maintain this with 
every move they make and every condescending idea they throw at the 
government to let them off with a mere telling off when they deserve 
to be broken in to tiny pieces on the floor.
    Catherine Jenkins
    State College, Pennsylvania.



MTC-00024995

From: David A. Milligan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General John Ashcroft: I support of the recent 
settlement between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. This 
settlement comes after two generations of software have occurred and 
it is time to settle. I am glad that Microsoft is not being broken 
up, but I think the terms of the settlement will correct some of the 
concerns that I have had with Microsoft's marketing tactics.
    Essentially, I think Microsoft has shown heavy-handed methods in 
their marketing tactics. I think competition is necessary to grow an 
industry and Microsoft is doing no one any good by wiping out their 
competitors. The terms of the settlement force them to disclose 
interfaces that are internal to Windows operating system products 
and not retaliate against computer makers or software developers 
that promote non-Microsoft products. I believer that these 
concessions by Microsoft are fair and represent a step in the right 
direction. I think that any settlement should include terms that 
improve competition which is very important to improving our 
standard of living and productivity.
    I hope your office finalizes the settlement and encourages the 
states to ensure that any further litigation on their part be 
justified.
    Thank you.
    David A. Milligan, Principal Engineer, Matches, 2005 N. 
Mistletoe Lane,
    Edmond, OK 73034-6054, (405) 340-2673, Fax (405) 
340-7884,
    [email protected]



MTC-00024997

From: Tim Kulogo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Any anti-trust settlement that helps Microsoft replace Macintosh 
in the School System will make Microsoft more powerful in the 
marketplace, which isn't much of a punishment. For this case to been 
anything but a waste of time and money, it must result in the 
creation of an operating system that is available at a lower price 
than windows, and can efficiently run the software that is available 
for the windows environment.
    Tim Kulogo
    Werner Electric Supply
    920-969-2132



MTC-00024998

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We, Mr. and Mrs. John Hilgendorf, believe the settlement is in 
the best interest of the consuming public and believe it should be 
approved. Continuing legal action can hurt the public rather than 
help it. Please let the open competition between companies continue 
without hindering a company

[[Page 27563]]

which has done so much for the general public.
    Thank You for your attention!



MTC-00024999

From: Harry vanderBurg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
    I would suggest to leave the software competition in the market 
place and spend the millions of legal fees (tax money) on better 
subjects such as education and healthcare. I personally believe 
Microsoft did a great job for our society and it was made possible 
by dedicated hard working developers. I still have to see the so-
called negative impact for consumers. Software has never been so 
cheap and avalaible for a wide range of people throughout the world. 
Its rivals have to beat this company by making better products 
instead of going the easy way and try to fight in court.
    H.W. van der Burg MBA
    Business Consultant
    The Netherlands



MTC-00025000

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:35pm
Subject: Has your opinion been counted
    I FAXED my letter back to you yesterday.
    Sincerely,
    George A. Glenday



MTC-00025001

From: Ray Casper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Attorney general John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. ashcroft:
    This letter is in support of the settlement with Microsoft. The 
settlement is in the best interest of the state, the IT industry, 
and the economy because it will allow us to direct those millions of 
dollars into other more important cases and programs.
    There are many restrictions on Microsoft as a result of this 
settlement. for instance, Microsoft has agreed to make available to 
its competitors any protocols implemented in Windows'' 
operating system products that are used to interoperate natively 
with any Microsoft server operating system. In addition, Microsoft 
has agreed to license its Windows operating system products to the 
20 largest computer makers on identical terms, including price. 
Plus, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against computer makers 
who ship software that competes with anything in its Windows 
operating system.
    Not only is the settlement fair and seems reasonable, but it 
also will prevent any future anticompetitive behavior. This project 
has gone on long enough and the general public wants to end the case 
and return to business as usual.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter as well as the other 
pressing day to day problems you have handled well during your time 
as Attorney General.
    Sincerely,
    H. R. Casper
    102 Concord Drive
    Watkinsville, GA 30677



MTC-00025005

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:35pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    DOJ:
    I am writing to register my objection to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I do not believe the current proposal serves the 
interests of promoting competition or remedying the impact on the 
Amercian consumer.
    The current proposal is merely an agreement by Microsoft to soft 
pedal its competition-stifling practices in return for the use of 
built-in loopholes that give it a leg-up on competitors. For 
example, permitting Microsoft to settle the matter by delivering 
Microsoft products to school systems, which traditionally tend to 
favor other vendors (e.g., Apple), is tantamount to state-
sponsorship of the extension of Mcirosoft's monopoly. Microsoft 
should be required to make payment in cash, and then permit the 
school systems to direct the use of these funds in the (hopefully 
technical) areas of its choosing.
    Futhermore, I believe the amount of the settlement is grossly 
inadequate to remove the incentive for Microsoft to continue its 
practices. I believe Microsoft will treat the settlement as a 
``cost of doing business'', much as any other 
``administrative overhead''.
    Finally, I believe the settlement should include requirements 
for Microsoft to provide open access to interfaces between its 
products, and to provide an unbundled version of Windows (no 
Internet Explorer, no Windows Media Player, etc.). These actions are 
needed to afford competitive products, including open source 
alternatives, with an environment in which they can compete on a 
level playing field with a competitor which controls the incumbent 
desktop operating system technology. Without true, timely and open 
access to interoperability information, the barriers of entry for 
alternative commercial and open source products will be too high to 
overcome the leverage held through its desktop operating system 
monopoly.
    Finally, to permit realistic options for enforcement and to 
avoid a recurrence of past practices, an oversight committee of some 
sort is truly needed.
    Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
    Sincerely,
    Alyssa Canann



MTC-00025018

From: Randall Hale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to submit to you my opinion briefly.
    I believe that Microsoft has used and will continue to use delay 
tactics to lessen any hardship that may be required of the company 
and it officers. This has been effectively practiced in this case 
and other recent legal cases to the point that they have made a 
mockery of our justices. I know that the appeal process is part of 
the system and they have the right to do so. But the justices they 
should not be blind to the intention and the craftiness of this 
organization.
    The Justice was right to not accept Microsoft's last offer it 
only would have served to reward their bad behavior.
    I think that Microsoft should be penalized to the point that it 
will conform to fair and legal business practices. Microsoft is so 
powerful that it can change the direction of the wind, with power 
like this a we need to treat it very respectfully and with sterness.
    Randy Hale



MTC-00025019

From: Oliver Barnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to it to be known that I think the Microsoft 
Settlement to be a farse.
    I believe the only way to end Microsoft's monopoly would have 
been to break it up into two separate companies, one in the 
Operating System businees and the other in the Application Software 
business. This settlement was a direct product of this 
Administration's ties to Microsoft.
    I subscribe to the views expressed in Dan Kegel's petition, and 
have signed it myself.
    Oliver Barnes, US Citizen
    Web Developer, self-employed
    Brooklyn, NY



MTC-00025020

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Grant Belgard
    9566 East Van Pl
    Baton Rouge, LA 70815



MTC-00025021

From: Mat Caughron
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 27564]]

Date: 1/25/02 5:02pm
Subject: proposed settlement is not in the public interest
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I have nearly a decade of experience in the retail software 
industry.
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Please consider Dan Kegel's suggested revisions.
    Thank you,
    Mathew Caughron
    co-founder
    Proteron LLC
    11649 Westwood Lane
    Omaha NE 68144



MTC-00025022

From: Burt Pittman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern
    It is clear from court documents and other public information 
that Microsoft has acted illegally and from all indications will 
continue to do so in spite of any penalties imposed or agreed to. It 
is becoming increasing clear that the power that Microsoft holds is 
not only greater that the other participants in it's market, but it 
greater even than the Department of Justice itself. The performance 
of the Dept. of Justice and the political and legal system as a 
whole does not speak well for Democracy in this country.



MTC-00025023

From: Betty Rae
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Holders of the Public Trust!
    I truly believe that it is in the best interests of the public 
at large to settle the case between the Department of Justice, the 9 
states, and Microsoft.
    We and our beloved country need to continue to benefit from the 
development of the resources and knowledge that Microsoft 
continually works toward providing, for the good of all, even for 
their competitors!
    Diverting of their finances and energy toward lawsuits on every 
side is wasting the funds that could much better be utilized for 
such development. I realize that lawyers involved in this field need 
to make a living, also, but, indirectly, it seems that it is being 
done excessively, at the expense of the good of many of our people. 
I feel this way, because many improvements in medicine, business and 
daily life are waiting, unfunded, to be developed by Microsoft, and 
yes, even by those States and Competitors who filed against 
Microsoft.
    The costs, of what I think are lawsuits that benefit few people, 
place these developments on a back burner, where they should not be.
    Let us settle this antitrust case now, without further ado. From 
here on, please let Microsoft and the States, Competitors, as well 
as the Department of Justice, go out and do the GOOD that you can 
do. Please quit wrangling with one another.
    Thank you for allowing me to communicate with you. I wish you 
all the very best.
    Sincerely,
    (Mrs.) Betty R. Hartwick



MTC-00025024

From: David Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:41pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    A company such as Microsoft should be rewarded for what it has 
done not penalized.
    Sincerly,
    David S. Williams



MTC-00025026

From: Kevin Moore
To: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network
Date: 1/25/02 4:42pm
Subject: Re: Has Your Opinion Been Counted?
    Let me be honest with you. I think that what the Federal 
government engaged in during the Clinton administration was 
political grandstanding, perhaps even some sort of vendetta, but 
certainly not in the national interest.
    I also believe that Microsoft engages in predatory marketing and 
sales practices. You dominate the computer industry because you are 
good, but also because you have and continue to throw your weight 
around. I don't like it any more than I like our huge Federal 
beaurocracy and it's results.
    I agree that it is time to move on. Stop trying to put your 
competition out of business. And, I strongly suggest that the 
government--DOJ especially--worry about national security, 
immigration, and misinterpretation of our Constitution.
    Kevin Moore
    Erie, PA
----- Original Message -----
From: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network
To: ``[email protected]'' Sent: Friday, 
January 25, 2002 1:59 PM
Subject: Has Your Opinion Been Counted?
    Has Your Opinion Been Counted?
    Earlier this month, you took part in a letter-writing campaign 
to express your opinion of the antitrust settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. We would like to thank you for 
your efforts and make sure that when we assisted you in organizing 
your thoughts on paper, you were completely satisfied that the draft 
letter fully expressed your own views in the matter. If you would 
like any changes, we would be happy to make them now.
    The public comment period on this settlement ends on January 28. 
The provisions of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to all 
parties involved, and go beyond the findings of the Court of Appeals 
ruling; however, the settlement is not guaranteed until after the 
review ends and the District Court determines whether the terms are 
indeed in the public interest.
    If you would like your opinion to count, now is the time to send 
in your letter! Please send your comments directly to the Department 
of Justice via email or fax no later than January 28. If you have 
already done so, or will do so in the near future, please be sure to 
send a signed copy to the FIN Mobilization Office, OR SIMPLY REPLY 
TO THIS EMAIL WITH A SHORT NOTE INDICATING THAT YOU HAVE SENT YOUR 
LETTER.
    Please take action today, to ensure your voice is heard.
    Once again, the Attorney General's contact information is:
    Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 
1-202-616-9937
    Email: [email protected]
    FIN Mobilization Office contact information:
    Fax: 1-800-641-2255
    Email: [email protected]
    Your support is greatly appreciated!
    FIN Mobilization Office
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00025027

From: Ronald R. Cooke
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 4:44pm
Subject: Tunney Act Comments: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney, Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530.
Reference: Tunney Act comments in United States of America v. 
Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK) and 
State of New York v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 
98-1233 (CKK).
[email protected]
With copies to: Interested Parties
From: Ronald R. Cooke
Cultural Economist and Industry Analyst
    The Settlement Proposed By The Justice Department Overlooks 
Reality Consumers within the Information Systems industry have 
expressed their skepticism about the settlement proposed by the 
Justice Department. In a poll of readers, for example, ZDNet asked: 
``Did Microsoft get off easy in the DOJ settlement?'' 
Seventy four percent of the respondents said ``Yes''. To 
quote columnist David Coursey, ``Nobody is precisely sure what 
it means, but the total effect seems little more than a hand slap 
.... Prohibitions that exist in one section seem to be rendered 
meaningless by another''.l Consumer and industry respondents to 
the Tunney review process will probably contend that the proposed 
remedy does not effectively end the anticompetitive practices, will 
not materially deprive the wrongdoer of the fruits of the 
wrongdoing, and will do virtually nothing to ensure that the 
illegality does not recur. The terms of the settlement are much too 
vague to be of much use. They can be manipulated and rendered 
ineffective through the legal process. The enforcement mechanism is 
inadequate. And finally, there is no clear cut way to prohibit 
monopolistic behavior.
    There is a more fundamental issue, however, that has not been 
adequately addressed by the process of law. It can be expressed as a 
simple question: How much unconstrained power do we want one single 
company to have? As the Enron debacle has demonstrated, this is not 
an idle question. Unrestrained corporate behavior can severely 
damage consumer rights.
    Microsoft has demonstrated that it can dominate the thinking of 
the PC Culture that

[[Page 27565]]

it so zealously nourishes. It has an overwhelming influence over the 
press--and therefore--the opinions of an uncritical 
public. Within the information systems industry, Microsoft is 
acknowledged to have indisputable economic, political and cultural 
power. Comments by members of congress suggest this company also has 
a growing influence over the legislative process.
    Given its announced strategic plans, it should be obvious this 
company wants more. Much more. Microsoft wants to wield the same 
kind of influence over the entertainment and communication 
industries that it does over the computer industry. It currently has 
aggressive initiatives to dominate the services and content of the 
Internet and is pressing forward with plans that will effectively 
manage the access, distribution and use of networked consumer 
entertainment. Mobile and location technologies will be used to 
penetrate additional consumer services. .Net will drive the consumer 
to Microsoft approved content and services. If these initiatives are 
successful, this single company will be in a position to dictate how 
we create, store, edit, access, distribute and use all kinds of 
electronic information. Worldwide. Across three industries.
    The reality of this situation raises a number of questions. 
Given its growing political and economic power, why do we believe 
that Microsoft will feel compelled to abide by the proposed 
settlement terms? Will they modify Microsoft's business strategy? 
Product plan? Will they prevent Microsoft from using integration, 
bundling and tying as weapons to lock out competitors in three 
industries? Will the proposed behavior monitoring process guarantee 
the delivery of reliable products? Improve consumer security? 
Prevent the abuse of corporate power? Ensure open markets? Encourage 
competitive innovation?
    It would appear that the answer to all of these questions is a 
resounding ``NO''. If that is true, then how can any 
reasonable person claim that the proposed settlement serves the 
public interest?
    Who Is The Consumer?
    Consumers have the right to expect that our federal institutions 
will deliver a settlement that has an immediate, substantial and 
permanent impact on the restoration of competition within the 
information systems industry.
    But, who is the consumer?
    Media and political personalities frequently project the image 
that all ``consumers'' are deficient, clueless and 
vulnerable. It is an image favored by self proclaimed consumer 
protection groups. Consumers are easily victimized and thus 
considered in need of protection. Hence in the Microsoft anti-trust 
case, both the Justice Department and the presiding Judge were 
concerned that the ``consumer'' had been victimized by 
excessive software prices and a lack of choice. This somewhat ill-
defined person had been forced to purchase Microsoft software 
through a captive retail channel and may have been overcharged.
    In reality, this image of the ``consumer'' is 
misleading. If we want to reach a settlement that protects both 
personal and institutional rights, we must first agree on a 
definition for the word ``consumer'' that incorporates all 
classes of buyers. For the purposes of this settlement agreement, 
therefore, we must consider two broad classifications of the concept 
``consumer''
    There are personal consumers and there are Enterprise consumers. 
Personal consumers engage in personal consumption. This happens when 
people make purchases for themselves, their families, their friends 
or anyone (or thing) else that commands their interest. They use 
their own money. Typical purchases include food, clothing, housing, 
vehicles and so on. Personal consumption accounts for roughly two 
thirds of America's GDP.
    Enterprise consumers spend money that belongs to the Enterprise. 
They buy products, property or services for their employer or their 
business. Broadly defined, Enterprise consumers include any entity 
defined by the standard industrial classification codes: i.e. 
insurers, manufacturers, retailers, hospitals, educational 
institutions, government agencies, personal service businesses and 
so on. Enterprise consumption accounts for approximately one third 
of America's GDP.
    Both segments of America's consumer population must be protected 
from Microsoft's assertive marketing power. We must not leave either 
group of technology buyers in the position that they will be forced 
to chose key products and services from one vendor, good or not, on 
terms and prices they can not evade.
    One of the more glaring problems with the proposed Microsoft 
settlement is that while Federal and State authorities have properly 
reacted to personal consumer complaints, they have failed to deal in 
a meaningful way with the problems of the Enterprise consumer. 
Industry wide issues include:
    Enterprise networks have become incredibly expensive and 
difficult to maintain.
    Existing PC operating systems are hard to manage and very costly 
to own.
    Internet and Intranet security problems have become so bad that 
they threaten electronic commerce and the viability of Enterprise 
operations. There are multiple industry reports that address these 
issues in great detail. It is worthy to note that excessive 
information system costs have been calculated in the $ billions per 
year and that industry publications continue to report on the 
related management and operating problems. It is also clear that 
these impediments will continue to plague the Enterprise consumer 
because there is no effective competition for the architectural 
concepts promoted by the dominant vendor.
    In this legal action however, Microsoft's alleged disregard of 
consumer needs was never pursued. There appear to be several 
reasons: some political, some practical, and some due to the 
inherent obsolescence of the Sherman Antitrust Law. But the issues 
remain:
    If PC operating system development has been paralyzed by the 
domination of a single vendor, has the consumer been harmed? And if 
the products are defective, what is the burden of liability?
    If network systems design has been primarily driven by the 
product plan and business model of a single vendor, has the consumer 
been harmed? And if the underlying system design was dysfunctional, 
what is the burden of liability?
    If a vendor, in order to deflect competition, announces products 
that do not exist, or products that never make it to market, has the 
consumer been harmed? And if the consumer was mislead, at what point 
does this constitute consumer fraud? What is the associated 
liability?2
    If consumer security and safety have been jeopardized by 
deficient systems architecture and defective products, what is the 
vendor's liability?3
    The complaints against Microsoft are far more numerous than 
those covered by this narrowly defined legal action. If the court 
wishes to impose a meaningful settlement on Microsoft, it will have 
to consider both the concerns of this specific case and the 
underlying intent of the Sherman Act. There is case law and there is 
the reality of dealing with an overwhelming marketing machine that 
is essentially able to set its own agenda.
    This reality puts the court in a quandary. If the court is to be 
forthright in its desire to protect the consumer, it must provide 
substantial relief for both personal and Enterprise consumption. It 
will have to deal with both the specific and the ambiguous. It must 
certainly expand the interpretation of the Sherman Act. And finally, 
the court will have to make its findings with the knowledge that 
this settlement will have a bearing on future actions against AOL/
Time Warner.
    Microsoft The Company
    Microsoft's corporate culture is driven by the mantra of revenue 
growth, institutional power and market control. Software is 
developed to gain market share or to demolish competition. Software 
defects and chronic insecurity have been institutionalized as 
components of the product plan. Microsoft does not have to be driven 
by consumer wants and needs. Microsoft is free to be driven by 
whatever strategy protects its revenues and extends its power into 
additional markets.
    Microsoft has been able to adopt competitive software concepts 
within its Windows architecture, thereby rendering the competitive 
software irrelevant. Examples include the incorporation of the 
Internet Explorer browser into the Windows user interface in order 
to destroy Netscape's Navigator and the inclusion of ``Java 
like'' features in the company's .Net strategy, a ploy that 
will eventually render Java redundant within the Windows 
environment.
    When faced with standards based competition, Microsoft has 
frequently been accused of using an ``embrace, extend, 
extinguish'' strategy to render the standard useless. 
Microsoft's version may even flaunt the concept of ``open 
standard'' by restricting Windows clients from working with any 
platform other than a Windows server.
    Microsoft has convinced a wide range of technologists, 
journalists, legislators and consumers that it has the exclusive 
wisdom to provide software innovation.
    This--of course--is absolute nonsense. Microsoft is 
not the only company that understands the fundamentals of software 
technology. Were it not for the company's

[[Page 27566]]

monopoly control over the market, consumers would be able to 
purchase a far superior PC operating system. Other vendors have 
developed, and are marketing, embedded operating systems with better 
technology and excellent reliability. Enterprise users have embraced 
a variety of alternative server operating systems because they have 
superior reliability and a lower cost of ownership. There are 
certainly alternative ways to build consumer friendly Internet, e-
mail, word processing, spreadsheet, graphics and data base 
applications. And there are many companies that develop software for 
the cell phone, PDA, set top box, in-home server and game markets.
    Unfortunately, few alternatives can effectively compete against 
Microsoft's marketing power. This company continues to use 
integration as a predatory weapon. Competing products, services and 
content will be hobbled--and thus less desirable.
    Management has a vision. Microsoft plans to dominate the 
computer game, cell phone and PDA/HPC (Personal Digital Assistant/
Handheld PC) markets, will force its way into the cable business and 
fully intends to be a leading provider of Internet services. These 
are key revenue growth strategies. The company's XP operating system 
is important because it drives Microsoft's largest revenue stream 
and the future of the company's .Net strategy. The Stinger cell 
phone and Pocket PC HPC OS launches open up new recurring mobile 
network revenue opportunities. The XBox game platform opens a 
strategic path to the convergence of entertainment and computing in 
the home. The company is actively tying its computer and 
communication software product strategy to its Internet services and 
content strategy. The Internet gives Microsoft a virtually unlimited 
marketplace that can be molded to the company's operating 
philosophy. Hailstorm and Passport fit perfectly into this scenario. 
Network clients using Microsoft software will be tightly integrated 
with Microsoft application and content servers.
    This is, after all, what convergence is all about.
    Unfortunately for the consumer, management's vision has a 
potential downside. Microsoft will be able to demand access to all 
of the software we use, modify it with or without our knowledge, and 
make copies of our files. This company will be in a position to 
monitor our use of the Internet, our political philosophy, our 
purchase behavior, and our friendships. Will Microsoft actually do 
this? Will a hacker be able to do the same thing? Does the consumer 
really want to be this vulnerable? We can understand that 
Microsoft's business model is driven by the visceral desire to 
absolutely dominate all high volume software applications. We can 
also understand that the company's prospects for revenue and profit 
growth are interdependent with the accumulation of power over the 
consumer's use of computing technology within the computer, 
communication and entertainment industries.
    It is time, however, to ask one simple question: Does this 
ubiquity serve the public interest?
    On the one hand we acknowledge Microsoft's accomplishments, the 
intensity of its vigorous pursuit of new markets and its right to 
function as an independent business. But on the other hand, the 
court must fashion a remedy that incorporates genuine protection for 
the consumer. The PC era was lots of fun. The Internet era was a 
wild ride. But going forward, Enterprise and personal consumers must 
have cost effective software that is reliable, predictable, useful, 
secure, easy to manage and open.
    Will a court imposed settlement provide the key?
    Alternative Remedies
    Nine States4, along with the District of Columbia, have 
presented an alternative proposal of remedy that would, if 
implemented, partially correct these deficiencies. This proposal has 
credibility because it directly addresses the findings of this 
specific case and establishes remedies that are consistent with 
prior court tests that judged the validity of relief from 
infractions of the Sherman Antitrust Law.
    1. Microsoft would have to offer a stripped version of Windows. 
Although much thought must go into the implementation methodology of 
this recommendation, it could have the effect of reducing consumer 
costs by encouraging the development of alternative personal 
computing appliances with competitive applications software. It 
would also have the effect of making it more difficult for Microsoft 
to exclude competition by tying its operating systems to its 
applications, content and services.
    2. Microsoft must support Java.
    Enterprise consumers have espoused Java as a highly useful 
programming language. Because it is an interpreted, object oriented, 
platform independent language, Java can be used to reduce the cost 
of developing, deploying and supporting networked applications. 
Despite the obvious benefits to the consumer, Microsoft wants to 
kill Java by making it irrelevant within a Microsoft controlled 
programming environment. Forcing Microsoft to give its full support 
to Java would give the Enterprise consumer and applications software 
developer incremental choice in the selection of development 
environments.
    3. Microsoft would be compelled to make Office available for all 
popular operating systems.
    Consumers have been forced to accept either Apple or Microsoft 
PC operating systems as a defacto prerequisite for using the 
company's Office suite. If Office were made available for all 
popular non-Microsoft operating systems, consumers would have a 
wider choice of operating system environments. In addition, this 
recommendation would encourage the development of competitive PC 
operating systems, presumably based on architectures that could 
deliver superior reliability, function and security.
    Given a carefully constructed court approved implementation and 
supervision methodology, these recommendations would be most helpful 
to the restoration of competition within the PC and network 
appliance software industries. However, if we want to preserve an 
open and competitive market, and if we want to be vigilant in our 
support of acceptable corporate behavior, then we should consider 
three additional recommendations.
    4. Restrict Microsoft from the Embedded Systems market. There 
are a number of reasons to restrict Microsoft's participation in the 
embedded systems market5. For the purposes of this specific 
settlement, however, we must focus our attention on the restoration 
of competition and innovation within the PC market. Going forward, 
we also need to ensure consumer choice in the markets for set top 
boxes, entertainment devices and communication appliances, as well 
as network based content and services. As discussed above, 
Microsoft's announced strategy is to tie its software products to 
its services and content businesses. If Microsoft is successful with 
these initiatives, this company will have greatly extended its 
marketing power and will be in a position to monopolize segments of 
the entertainment and communications industries.
    For a period of seven years, therefore, Microsoft should be 
prohibited from selling any embedded systems software products, 
including CE, its derivatives and any comparable products. If there 
is to be any credible competition for Microsoft's existing monopoly 
over PC operating system architectures, it is most likely to come 
from the manufacturers of network attached appliances. Over time, 
the embedded software within products will increase in 
sophistication. There is no reason why these system architec tures 
can not be used to provide the consumer with the whole range of PC 
applications.
    Microsoft would be compelled to establish a separate company for 
its CE, Stinger, XBox, PocketPC, set top box and all other currently 
active embedded systems product efforts within 8 months of signing a 
settlement agreement. Microsoft would not be allowed to own any part 
of the company or its stock for a period of 7 years. Any funding for 
the newly spun-off company must come from sources in which Microsoft 
has no financial interest. Five years after the spin-off, Microsoft 
would be allowed to start a new embedded software development effort 
that could be offered for sale no sooner than seven years after 
signing the settlement agreement. Placing restrictions on 
Microsoft's embedded systems efforts will reduce the company's 
ability to dominate the related communication and entertainment 
markets. Microsoft would be encouraged to establish partnerships 
with the existing content and service companies as well as the 
manufacturers of embedded hardware and software products. These 
markets can then evolve in ways that are not tied to a single 
company's business strategy and revenue plan.
    5. Place Microsoft under Court Supervision
    It is difficult to imagine how the proposed settlement terms 
will prevent Microsoft from engaging in anti-competitive behavior. 
One would have to assume that Microsoft is immune from the 
temptations of corporate power. It would be helpful, therefore, if 
Microsoft were placed under the supervision of the court. A 
methodology must be developed that permits complaints of

[[Page 27567]]

wrongdoing to be reviewed in a prompt and fair manner. Fines and 
restrictions, where necessary and justifiable, should be imposed by 
the court after a hearing process.
    Court supervision should reduce the need for further Justice 
Department action and could be used to establish the parameters for 
pending civil actions. The intention is that Microsoft could engage 
in any permitted business practice, strategy and tactic it wished, 
so long as the court agrees that its actions are lawful. The period 
of supervision should be continued until the court, by its own 
determination, believes that supervision is no longer justified.
    6. Insist on a Code of Conduct
    If we assume that we do not want our larger corporations to be 
driven solely by the mantra of revenue and profit growth, then any 
company that achieves a dominate position within any single industry 
has an obligation to adjust its behavior to operate in the public 
interest. The usual mechanism is through the imposition of 
government regulation. Absent this solution, the alternative is to 
insist that the dominant company have a set of enforceable standards 
against which it is possible to judge individual employee conduct.
    Under court supervision, Microsoft should be compelled to adopt 
a Code of Conduct. Specific sections should address this company's 
relationship with competitors, suppliers, consumers, and partners. A 
methodology must be developed that permits complaints of wrongdoing 
to be reviewed in a prompt and fair manner. Fines and restrictions, 
where necessary and justifiable, should be imposed against 
individual employees.
    It would appear that these recommendations can be implemented in 
a fair and equitable manner. The objective is not to unduly punish 
Microsoft. The Third and Fourth Waves of computing are history. We 
must look forward, not backward. Punishment is less desirable than 
the creation of a competitive, needs driven, marketing environment 
for the consumer. It would appear that all six recommendations, if 
implemented as a whole, would have a minimal impact on Microsoft's 
existing revenues and profits. There would be little interference 
with the company's PC and server software business. Over the next 5 
to 7 years, the net effect is that Microsoft would not grow as fast 
and it would have to look to industry partners for some products 
compliment its .Net strategy.
    For the consumer, however, the restoration of competition within 
the PC industry will be enormously beneficial. New innovation can 
take the form of products that are easier to manage, more reliable, 
more secure, and less costly to own.
    The Sherman Antitrust Law
    AS a piece of legislation, the Sherman Antitrust Law appears to 
be obsolete. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was designed to deal 
with the political and monopoly power of (frequently interlocking) 
trusts. Specific companies had pricing, availability, distribution 
and product power over the consumer. Relief came in the form 
specific restrictions to business practices and monetary punishment.
    The Sherman Antitrust Law does not address the defacto standards 
issue. Over the last 75 years, the telephone, teletype, electric, 
water, radio, entertainment, and television industries have been 
characterized by the evolution of increased concentration based on a 
company dominated list of defacto standards. Within the public 
services industries, regulation has been used to ensure that these 
standards are beneficial to the public interest. There are 
additional examples of industrial standards that have been promoted 
for the benefit of all potential players. When RCA set the defacto 
standards for color television, for example, multiple industry 
participants were able to adopt them for their individual benefit. 
Dominant players set the rules of competition and corporate 
existence. All industries are vulnerable. Airlines, banking, 
insurance, manufacturing, retailing--it does not matter. The 
potential for domination--whether by marketing power, financial 
strength, or technology--exists. And if 21st century industries 
tend to gravitate toward single standards established by one 
dominant player, then we need to ask multiple questions:
    What is an open and competitive market?
    What is the basis for determining economic concentration?
    What is market domination?
    Should a company be allowed to use it's domination of one market 
to leverage its customer base into the domination of other markets?
    If the consumer is forced to purchase defective and/or 
dysfunctional products because there is no viable alternative, what 
is the dominant company's implied liability?
    What are consumer rights? (How can they be measured?)
    At what point does the power of the dominant player jeopardize 
consumer rights?
    What is a fair penalty for jeopardizing consumer rights?
    If a market is dominated by a single company, at what point does 
this imply that it must assume a fiduciary responsibility to act in 
the public interest? And what are the guidelines for corporate 
behavior? How will they be enforced?
    How much political and economic power do we want a single 
company to accumulate within a specific market?
    And finally; What is the mechanism for restructuring 
competition? Obviously, there are many more questions that need to 
be addressed if the Sherman Act is to be rendered relevant to the 
realities of 21st Century Corporations. The purpose of this more 
limited discussion, however, is to demonstrate the deficiencies of 
the Sherman Act when considering the specific parameters of this 
settlement. Neither the Sherman Act, nor the proposed settlement, 
address the realities of existing market structures, emerging 
technologies, defacto standards, the issues of convergence or the 
use of 21st century corporate power.
    Since the Sherman Act currently provides inadequate guidelines 
for establishing what will be--essentially--public policy, 
then the court has two choices:
    *Interpret the law within the narrow confines of this case using 
legal precedent (which essentially will let Microsoft off the hook); 
or
    *Broaden the interpretation of the Sherman Act in order to 
protect the consumer from further harm that may occur in the future 
(which will require the Court to consider issues and questions not 
necessarily documented within the scope of this case).
    Either way, the court's determination will be sent to the 
Supreme Court for resolution.
    Conclusion
    Since the proposed Justice Department settlement provides only 
limited relief for a very narrowly defined case, it will fail to 
provide the public policy guidelines that are so desperately needed 
to protect the consumer from the abuse of corporate authority. It 
does nothing to relieve the increasing concentration of political, 
economic and marketing power that is now occurring within the 
computer, communication and entertainment industries.
    We are thus faced with two realities. On the one hand there is 
the reality of the specifics of this case and the proposed 
settlement remedies. On the other hand, there is the reality of the 
need to maintain open and competitive markets for the products, 
services and content. A really good settlement will bridge these two 
realities.
    As for the Sherman Act? Corporate governance is out of control. 
Unfortunately, we all know that Congress will not act until it is 
politically expedient to do so. Failure to act implies acceptance of 
the status quo. Competition will fade. Corporate power and influence 
will be concentrated. More Enron's will happen. By the time congress 
acts, if at all, it may be too late to impose meaningful reform.
    So it is up to our court system, and perhaps the Commissions of 
the European Union, to both make and execute the guidelines we need 
to protect the consumer. We want our corporations, including 
Microsoft, to be successful. We expect them to grow their revenues 
and profits. We want them to pursue new business opportunities. But 
we also want them to operate within open and competitive markets so 
that consumers have an opportunity to purchase the products, 
services and content they want, at a price they can afford, and on 
terms that make them practical. That means that our legal system 
must guard against the potential abuse of corporate power and the 
inherent problems of market domination. In this settlement, we are 
asking the court to define those guidelines in a way that protects 
consumers from the potential of future abuse.
    Is that too large a task? Too sweeping a challenge? Too far from 
the specifics of this case? I think not. It is the reality of 21st 
century technology and market structures. Convergence, after all, 
implies consolidation. And consolidation breeds domination.



MTC-00025028

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attn.: Renata B. Hesse.
    The subject settlement is one of the most disappointing things 
that government has done in a long time. It has no really bases in 
my opinion. If there is any monopoly it is government.

[[Page 27568]]

    It appears to me that Netscape and other like companies are 
pursuing this issue to feather their own nest. It is of no benefit 
to the American citizens as far as I can see. In fact it is 
diverting many resources from one of the most creative companies to 
keep over zealous regulators and litigators from destroying it's 
ability to compete in the old fashion American way. In my opinion 
what you, that is the justice department, are doing is about as un-
American as it gets.
    Spear Lancaster



MTC-00025029

From: Jeff Chirico
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am amazed that the DOJ continues this special interest and 
corporate biased trend of regulating competition in the courtroom. 
At various times in history different companies have excelled in 
specific business areas, but as is usual in a market driven economy 
the balancing of business is achieved through vigorous competition 
in industry, not through litigation. IBM looked unstoppable when I 
was growing up, and went through the same defining moments as 
Microsoft. Years later after IBM's strength was weakened the DOJ 
then dropped the anti-trust case. What did this endeavor actually 
resolve, but the weakening of an American enterprise.
    Thankfully Microsoft products are American and represent a 
market segment that the United States still has a significant lead 
and growth in. Yet, only in America do we thwart such innovative 
products from growth using the courtroom to pad folks'' resumes 
in the DOJ.
    I hope the Republicans in office will recognize a more laissez-
faire approach to the economy, and will now halt this trend by 
pushing this case out the door with a limited remedy. The current 
remedy proposed that benefits education seems more than reasonable 
and honorable to me. The states that do not agree at this point have 
their own special interests, and are purchased lobbyists for AOL, 
Sun, and Oracle.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Chirico



MTC-00025030

From: Jesse Wheeler
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is bogus. Please 
reconsider.



MTC-00025031

From: Darrell McKigney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Comment from the Small Business Survival Committee on the 
Proposed Settlement in United States v. Microsoft
    January 25, 2002
    Darrell McKigney
    President
    &
    Raymond J. Keating
    Chief Economist
    Small Business Survival Committee
    Small Business Survival Committee
    1920 L Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
    Phone: 202-785-0238
    Fax: 202-822-8118
    E-mail: [email protected]
    E-mail: [email protected]
    The Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC) believes that the 
proposed settlement between Microsoft Corp., the federal government 
and nine U.S. states in the case of United States v. Microsoft Corp. 
generally serves the ?public interest? and the nation's economic 
well being.
    In its settlement, Microsoft has agreed to a variety of 
restrictions on its business practices for at least five years. 
Microsoft also would be subject to (and have to pay for) a full-
time, on-site monitoring panel of three computer experts, who would 
have complete access to Microsoft's software code, systems, books, 
records, personnel, etc.
    Considering that the antitrust case against Microsoft had 
absolutely no basis in economic reality, and that the government 
brought its case at the behest of competitors?not 
consumers--who could not keep up in the marketplace, we view 
any findings against Microsoft, and related restrictions placed on 
the firm, as unwarranted. However, given the costs, looming 
uncertainties, the current economic climate, and penchant for bad 
law and convoluted economics to dominate in the antitrust realm, 
Microsoft certainly made the correct business decision in reaching 
this settlement. Investor's Business Daily hit the nail on the head 
when it recently (January 22) editorialized:
    Late Thursday, Microsoft reported its earnings for the fourth 
quarter. They included a hefty charge of $660 million, or 8 cents a 
share, for expenses linked to antitrust lawsuits and ongoing legal 
action by some states.
    Think about it: that's two-thirds of a billion dollars. It could 
fund a lot of research, give a lot of raises to workers, even fund 
more Microsoft charity around the country.?
    So, the costs of this case for the company, the taxpayers and 
the economy in general have been formidable.
    And make no mistake, these costs are felt by many small 
businesses. Small enterprises certainly can be affected by the costs 
of this antitrust case (and others) in their roles as consumers of 
Microsoft products, and as suppliers to Microsoft. In addition, 
entrepreneurship and business can be impacted by the message sent by 
government in a case such as this, i.e., that if a business works 
and competes hard to succeed and gain market share, the government 
may move against it through regulation and litigation. That is not a 
positive economic message for government to be broadcasting into the 
marketplace.
    Microsoft, the many businesses which serve as its suppliers and 
consumers, and the software industry have been placed at risk due to 
the government's long antitrust inquisition against Microsoft, and 
real costs have been incurred. The government's antitrust case 
against Microsoft has boosted costs, increased uncertainty in the 
high-tech community, and thereby, hurt the entire U.S. economy.
    Looking ahead, it is quite disturbing that government 
officials--including regulators, lawyers, and judges--have 
the ability to impose their own anachronistic views of how markets 
should work on the rest of us, including the high-tech industries of 
today and tomorrow. Antitrust regulation remains a dangerous wild 
card in the marketplace. Depending how the latest political breezes 
happen to be blowing, our nation's most successful companies are in 
a position to be punished for their success via antitrust actions.
    Antitrust law is regularly presented as a bulwark of competition 
and free markets. In reality, however, antitrust law, for the most 
part, is distinctly anti-market and anti-competition because it 
allows government bureaucrats or judges to overrule decisions made 
by consumers in the marketplace. In the end, government antitrust 
actions in this case have amounted to nothing more than an effort to 
protect some of Microsoft's current rivals from the rigors of 
competition, and/or an effort to expand the reach and control of 
government.
    It needs to be understood that in the free market, businesses 
compete against current and future competitors. The rapid pace of 
innovation in the computer industry makes this abundantly clear. 
Therefore, many antitrust actions exhibit an inability on the part 
of regulators, government lawyers and some judges to understand the 
dynamic nature of the marketplace. Markets are not static. The 
classroom lesson about ``perfect competition'' does not 
exist in the real world. Instead, the economy involves a rough-and-
tumble competitive process whereby entrepreneurs and businesses 
create new products and services, innovations, and efficiencies, 
often generating temporary monopolies that are then obliterated by 
competitors. Prices and profits act as signals in the marketplace to 
other businesses and entrepreneurs. An activist antitrust regime, as 
was exhibited over the past several years in the Microsoft case, 
disrupts this beneficial economic process.
    The fact that antitrust law looms unchanged--to be 
erratically used as a club by government--will continue to cast 
a shadow over the U.S. economy, particularly dynamic high-tech 
industries in which temporary monopolies are the clear rule.
    Ideally, the Microsoft case should have been dropped altogether, 
and looking ahead, dramatic antitrust reform needs to be undertaken 
to reflect economic reality.
    Short of such action though, a settlement in this case, which 
obviously steps far back from a proposed break up of Microsoft, 
makes sense. Hopefully, since much of the government's case has been 
thrown out or overturned, perhaps this Microsoft settlement will 
serve as a warning that antitrust restraint on the part of the 
government far better serves consumers, entrepreneurship and 
innovation, than does antitrust activism.
    Darrell McKigney is the president of the Small Business Survival 
Committee.
    Raymond J. Keating serves as chief economist for the Small 
Business Survival Committee (SBSC).
    SBSC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit small business advocacy group 
headquartered in Washington, DC

[[Page 27569]]



MTC-00025032

From: Kevin Mounts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a long-time professional software engineer living in Seattle, 
I have been privy to a great deal of information about Microsoft's 
behavior in the software industry, through careful attention to 
various news media, discussions with other software engineers, 
including those working at Microsoft, and personal experience. What 
I know of Microsoft's business practices leads me to the unavoidable 
conclusion that the company is severely anti-competitive, has been a 
constant hindrance to progress and innovation in the field of 
software development, and will not be deterred in the least in some 
of its more egregious, if less public, practices by the proposed 
settlement.
    Settling with Microsoft on these terms is the business 
equivalent of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's 1938 statement 
that he had ensured ``peace in our time'' through his 
settlement with Hitler over the Sudetenland.
    Personally, I don't feel that anything short of liquidation 
would provide adequate remedy for the harm Microsoft has done to the 
industry, but as that is unlikely to happen, a break-up along lines 
similar to Judge Jackson's proposal would be the minimum that would 
have a noticeable effect.
    Kevin Mounts
    Mahana Enterprises
    [email protected]



MTC-00025033

From: Will Francis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement does very little to limit the scope of 
Microsoft's anti-competative and anti-consumer acts. Microsoft's 
``embrace and extend'' policy attempts to have solely them 
control any standard into their own defacto standard therefore not 
allowing anyone to compete in any meaningful way. Whenever another 
company invents something novel which may compete meaningfully with 
a Microsoft product, those companies are either bought outright, or 
Microsoft ``innovates'' those same services into their 
Operating System such that it's pointless to purchase the original 
competitors products. Java is such a perfect example where Microsoft 
licensed Java and then ``extended'' it in such a way that 
broke compatibility with the original version. This allow Microsoft 
with it's massive installed base to become the defacto controller of 
Java. Thankfully, Microsoft lost in court against Sun, but to 
counter that, they simply stopped shipping Java with their products 
and invented their own Java-like language. Obviously the same 
pattern can be said about their browser, their media client, Office 
products, games, email clients and many more.
    In my opinion, Microsoft should be broken up into two companies:
    1. An OS company
    2. Everything else
    Allow other companies to provide services for the OS on a level 
playing field as Microsoft itself. As long as Microsoft can grow 
their OS to include whatever industry they which to dominate next, 
few will dare to compete with them.
    Thank you.
    Will Francis
    US citizen
    San Jose, CA
    (408) 297-5988



MTC-00025034

From: Patrick Elliott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I believe that the terms of the settlement against Microsoft 
Corporation are reasonable and fair to all parties involved, and 
meet--or go beyond--the ruling by the Court of Appeals, 
and represent the best opportunity for the industry to move forward. 
While I personally do not see any wrongdoing on the part of 
Microsoft, I am glad to see their willingness to work with the DOJ 
and the industry to continue to promote fair, competative business 
practices.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick M. Elliott, Petersburg, VA



MTC-00025035

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:43pm
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,
    James Papa
    66 Camille Dr
    Rochester, NY 14612



MTC-00025036

From: Francesco Gallo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: Francesco P. Gallo
216 Hitching Post Dr.
Wilmington, DE 19803
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    These my few lines are a follow up of the short comments I 
addressed to the Assistant Attorney General Mr. Charles A James at 
the beginning of January. As one of the consumers we hope that 
finally the case of Microsoft will be settled, in order to 
continuing enjoy the improvements in the technology that we are 
witnessing in our daily life. We fill it is vital that the company, 
together with the others in the sector, dedicate more time and 
resources to increase the value added that our Country so badly 
needed, especially during this period of slow down.
    We hope that the conclusion of this case will also avoid other 
futile actions, as the one we just read in the newspapers about a 
new legal suit advanced by Aol Time Warner, through Netscape. This 
settlement that is in the public interest should discourage any 
future actions that attempt to solve in the courtroom their 
problems. We thank you for your attention.
    Respectfully,
    Francesco P. Gallo
    CC:Francesco Gallo



MTC-00025037

From: J. Warner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm hoping the right decision is made and future unlawful 
practices are deterred. But it appears that Microsoft has been able 
to side step their unlawful practices, in the past, and continue 
work as normal. They continue to try and control all computer 
operating systems and to deter any alternative systems. The proposed 
Educational solution was just another example of their controlling 
their destiny. This would have been no punishment for them. It was 
their way to dominate the Educational market, besides their 
continued domination of the business and home computer markets. 
(Also their continued efforts to control the internet.) I'm writing 
to let you know I appreciate you letting me express my opinions, on 
the matter, and hope all factors are taken in to consideration. I 
believe Microsoft has a choke hold on the computer world. If they 
are not made to let go of that grip, one day it may be to late and 
we will all pay dearly. Thank you again for your attention.
    J.P. Warner



MTC-00025038

From: Robert Calhoun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is in response to the request for Public Comment regarding 
Civil Action 98-1232 (CKK), United States of America vs. 
Microsoft Corporation. I do not agree with the proposed settlement. 
I do not think that the remedies it provides will prevent Microsoft 
from continuing to abuse its monopoly power in the field of computer 
operating systems.
    About me: I am a professional software developer. I develop 
custom software primarily for users of Microsoft operating systems. 
I use development tools sold by the Microsoft Corporation and by 
National Instruments. I also use and write software for the Apple 
Macintosh, primarily using development tools provided by Apple 
Computer.

[[Page 27570]]

    I have used and programmed microcomputers since 1983. I have 
used and written web pages for the World Wide Web since 1993. My use 
of this technology predates Microsoft's interest in it, and this has 
an influence on my comments. I have a strong belief that the World 
Wide Web should be based on open standards which allow any software 
developer to write a browser which allows the user to experience the 
World Wide Web fully. My specific suggests on the remedies follow my 
comments on the complaint.
    On the complaint: The Government's 1998 complaint is focused on 
web browsers, specifically on Internet Explorer 4. At this point, 
Microsoft has released improved versions of their browser, known as 
Internet Explorer 5 (``IE5'') and Internet Explorer 6 
(``IE6''). The so-called ``browser war'' is 
essentially over, with Microsoft Internet Explorer substantially 
obliterating the competition from a market-share point of view. 
(Recent browser usage statistics from TheCounter.com show IE5 has 
the largest share, at 64%; combined statistics for IE4, IE5, and IE6 
top 90%.)
    If anything, the Government's complaint underestimates the 
efforts that Microsoft has taken to reach this outcome. A large part 
of the problem is the significant amount of time that has elapsed 
since the complaint was filed. Much of this delay is due to requests 
for stay and appeals that Microsoft has made. I believe that 
Microsoft has attempted to delay resolution of this complaint until 
the political winds changed in Washington, or until the issue became 
irrelevant. Both have occurred.
    Microsoft is clearly capable of writing a best-in-class browser. 
Microsoft's browser for the Macintosh, IE5 for Macintosh OS 9, is 
arguably the best browser on any platform. It combines reasonably 
good standards adherence with significant user-interface 
enhancements. Apple now ships this browser with every Macintosh. 
While the browser is certainly very good on its own merits, it has 
been suggested that Microsoft required Apple to make IE5 the default 
browser in order for the development of Microsoft Office for the 
Macintosh to continue. I do not know if such allegations are true, 
but they are worrisome.
    IE5 on the Windows platform also impressive features. One of the 
most impressive, especially compared with Netscape's offerings, is 
its rapid launch speed. IE5 simply demolishes the later versions of 
Netscape Communicator in launch speed and memory footprint.
    This rapid launch speed is partially the result of the fact that 
many parts of IE5 are now built in to the Windows operating system. 
Not only does IE5 make great use of these specialized operating 
system components, several software components which are essential 
for operation of non-browser software are installed as part of the 
Internet Explorer 5 installation process. Nowhere is this more clear 
than in the nature of the ``file browser'' used in Window 
2000. This browser is essentially the same software as IE5.
    One is called ``Explorer.exe'' and one is called 
``IEXPLORE.EXE'', but these two applications have so much 
in common that it is possible to surf the Web with Explorer, or 
investigate files on a disk drive with Internet Explorer.
    It is a well-known fact to software developers that many strange 
and inexplicable problems with deploying projects that make use of 
Microsoft's ActiveX technology are solved by the installation of 
IE5. I do believe that Microsoft is correct when they declare that 
Internet Explorer is fundamental to the functioning of the Windows 
operating system. I also believe that they deliberately created this 
situation. Microsoft has made IE5 an integral part of the Windows 
operating system, to the point that it Internet Explorer now has its 
own section under ``Internet Explorer: Platform SDK [Software 
Development Kit]''. IE5 is Microsoft's recommended 
``container'' for testing component software using 
Microsoft's ActiveX interface, and it is at this point 100% 
necessary when developing certain (non-browser) software on the 
platform. A World Wide Web full of web pages designed to be viewed 
with Internet Explorer is a difficult place for the users of other 
browswers.
    I feel I need to make it clear that I don't have a problem with 
Microsoft adding web capabilities to the core of the Windows 
operating system. I am not against Microsoft innovating in this area 
nor in any other area of software development. Certain features 
(accessing Web pages, parsing the HTML language used to write them, 
etc.) are relatively low-level functions that arguably belong in a 
modern operating system. Microsoft has added many, many other 
operating system technologies (DirectX, NetShow, Windows Media) 
which also give the end user a richer experience and make it easier 
for developers to write software for the Microsoft Windows platform.
    Where I disagree with Microsoft's approach is that they tend to 
view any software which has a significant, or potentially 
significant, market as an area in which they should seek a dominant 
market position, and they use their monopoly power in operating 
systems to achieve this.
    The principal approach used is a) add components to the 
operating system which give the operating system new power and 
flexibility, b) allowing Microsoft's internal software developers 
superior access to these technologies and c) giving away 
technologies for free in order to obtain a dominant market position.
    With respect to (a) and (b), Microsoft has at different times 
claimed on one hand that a ``brick wall'' exists between 
its operating system groups and its end-user groups, and on the 
other that customers would suffer harm if the closely coupled 
operating system groups and end-user groups were broken up into two 
separate companies. These two statements are mutually exclusive. 
With respect to (c), Microsoft has argued that free software is in 
the consumer's best interest. Free software is unquestionably in the 
consumer's best short-term interest. Sometimes, however, the process 
is in Microsoft's best long-term interest. As an example, take 
Microsoft's proposed settlement of the present case with those 
States which have not signed on to the Justice Department's proposed 
settlement. Microsoft offered to give refurbished computers and 
Microsoft software worth a total of approximately $1 billion to the 
nation's poorest 14,000 school districts. Schools are one of the few 
markets where one of Microsoft's few remaining competitors in the 
operating system market, Apple Computer, has a significant market 
share. The purpose of these free computers and free software appears 
to be twofold: first, to help students in these poor districts, and 
second, to ensure these districts make a decisive switch to 
Microsoft operating systems.
    Were it not for Microsoft's monopoly power, I would not be 
concerned by any of their business practices. The close working 
relationship between operating system engineers and end-user product 
engineers is, for example, carried on at Apple Computer and has 
resulted in the release of highly respected products such as Final 
Cut Pro (video editing software), to the detriment of the former 
market leader in this area, Avid. But since Apple Computer does not 
have monopoly power, it cannot be argued that Apple's 
00025038--0003 actions are in violation of the Sherman Anti-
Trust Act. It is only because of Microsoft's monopoly power that we 
must view their business actions in a different, and more critical, 
light.
    In this light, the original 1998 complaint of the Government 
should be properly viewed as an *example* of Microsoft's 
anticompetitive practices, rather than a *summary* of Microsoft's 
anticompetitive practices. The example in the original complaint is 
no longer relevant, as Microsoft has obtained the market supremacy 
with Internet Explorer that it desired.
    It is too late to correct this: nothing can be done about 
Internet Explorer's dominance at this point. Rather, the goal of any 
settlement should be to ensure that Microsoft does not continue to 
exploit its monopoly power in an illegal and noncompetitive manner. 
Areas which Microsoft does not yet have market dominance, but which 
it is currently seeking market dominance comprise the following:
    1) The market for streaming audio and video. Currently there are 
three dominant players: Real Networks's RealMedia, Microsoft's 
Windows Media, and Apple's Quicktime Streaming. It is generally 
agreed that the Real Networks product yields the best user 
experience over unpredictable public networks. Microsoft is 
currently seeking market dominance in this area by bundling the 
Windows Media Player with its operating system. This is not always 
the best experience for consumers; I have found the Windows Media 
Player to be slow and ungainly for listening to simple .WAV audio 
files compared with Microsoft's older and less sophisticated audio 
player, which is no longer available.
    2) On-line services: AOL is still the dominant on-line service 
despite Microsoft's investment in MSN. Microsoft still attempts to 
increase the use of MSN via a) in-store promotions for new PC owners 
b) desktop icons for MSN and c) MSN as the default start-up screen 
for Internet Explorer. If not for these constant promotions and 
heavy subsidy from Microsoft, it's unlikely that an unprofitable 
enterprise like MSN would still

[[Page 27571]]

exist. AOL allegedly bought Netscape more for the Netscape 
``portal'' than for Netscape's software. This is supported 
by the fact that the AOL browser is based on Internet Explorer 
rather than the Netscape browser. AOL failed to realize that as the 
use of the Netscape browser fell to single digit percentages, the 
value of the Netscape portal (which was the default home page for 
that browser) would fall accordingly, which it has. Microsoft has 
argued that AOL's purchase of Netscape suggests that Netscape was 
actually a successful, viable company despite Microsoft's 
anticompetitive efforts. Microsoft has also argued that AOL has 
squandered this asset, and now seeks legal redress for AOL's failure 
to use the Netscape resources in an effective manner. I cannot 
really argue this latter point. AOL was unwise to buy Netscape, 
which was clearly headed for bankruptcy and, whether or not AOL 
acquired it, a complete exodus of key personnel. AOL tremendously 
overvalued Netscape as an asset. It overpaid for it, and it has 
completely failed to use what remained of Netscape's technological 
assets in a remotely effective way. Just because AOL is dumb does 
not mean that Microsoft does not have monopoly power, that they did 
not abuse that monopoly power in the Netscape case, or that they 
will not continue to abuse their monopoly power in the future. AOL's 
purchase of Netscape should be viewed in light of the whole Internet 
bubble economy, which allowed marginally profitable companies like 
AOL to buy other companies with overvalued stock. In the case of 
Netscape, AOL got little for its overvalued AOL shares. In the case 
of Time-Warner, AOL got a lot. The $4.2 billion dollar Netscape 
acquisition does not imply that Netscape had a fair-market value of 
$4.2 billion dollars, because no one in their right mind would pay 
$4 billion dollars in cash for Netscape. 00025038--0004 
Microsoft has stated that AOL spent $10 billion for Netscape, but 
this is incorrect.
    3) Database Technology: Microsoft current makes an excellent 
database server, known as MSDE, available to developers who own 
Microsoft's development suite, known as Visual Studio. This product 
is of very high quality, and developers may deploy it free of 
charge. The goal appears to be to encourage the use of database 
routines which are compatible with Microsoft's enterprise-class 
database product, SQL Server. Microsoft also has developed a 
blizzard of database-interface technologies (ODBC, OLE-DB, DAO, RDO, 
ADO, and now parts of the new .NET) which the most diligent database 
provider would have a hard time keeping up with.
    I speak as a developer here. I need to use database technologies 
in my Microsoft Windows-based applications, and I use MSDE. It's 
free, it's fast, and it works well with Microsoft's ADO layer, since 
Microsoft wrote ADO, the OLE-DB layer that ADO calls, and the SQL-
Server layer at the bottom.
    I doubt that Oracle, IBM, Sybase, and MySQL have the same 
ability to keep up with Microsoft's changing interface layers that 
Microsoft's own engineers have.
    There are many other examples of areas where Microsoft is 
currently seeking market dominance. The settlement should be 
designed to allow Microsoft and other software venders to compete in 
an unfettered manner without giving Microsoft the unfair advantage 
of having written the operating system.
    Regarding the Settlement:
    Sections A-C:
    These remedies are focused on preventing Microsoft from 
retaliating against hardware venders (OEMs) for installing non-
Microsoft middleware. The remedies do not prevent Microsoft from 
installing Microsoft middleware along with the operating system, or 
at a later time via an automatic download.
    In the past, installation of Microsoft software components has 
often broken competing products that offer similar services. It is 
not clear whether the behavior is intentional or a result of the 
relative fragility of the Windows operating system. Usually the end-
user's best option is to stop using the non-Microsoft product. 
Merely preventing Microsoft from retaliating against OEMs is 
insufficient.
    Section D:
    This remedy is not enforceable. The Windows API is very 
complicated. Portions of it could be left undocumented, or provided 
with documentation which is vague or difficult to understand, and it 
would be very difficult to prove otherwise. Because the API is so 
large, it is unlikely that third parties could verify that 
Microsoft's own engineers used only publicly documented routines in 
publicly documented ways without a very large engineering effort.
    Section J:
    Cryptography experts agree that secure cryptographic systems are 
best built on published algorithms which have a strong mathematical 
basis for their robustness. This section allows Microsoft to modify 
cryptography systems, such as the Kerberos system developed at MIT, 
while keeping the changes 00025038,0005 private. This makes it hard 
for ISVs to develop products (such as VPNs) which are compatible 
with Microsoft's offerings.
    In General:
    The settlement affects only ``Middleware'' This does 
not address Microsoft's end-user applications such as Microsoft 
Office, a widely used program with a proprietary file format. This 
program has been used to influence the actions of Apple Computer and 
the lack of it on the Linux operating system makes it difficult to 
use Linux in an office environment.
    Microsoft's approach to software development makes heavy use of 
shared code (``DLLs'') and shared user interface features 
``ActiveX controls''. It is possible for Microsoft to 
write applications which make use of these DLLs and ActiveX controls 
to create end-user applications that launch very fast and use little 
non-shared memory. With these objects built in to the operating 
system, ISVs have a hard time creating software that can match the 
small installation size of Microsoft applications. While 3rd parties 
can add DLLs and ActiveX controls to Windows, they clearly can never 
remove a pre-existing Microsoft component, which might cause the OS 
to break. This provides Microsoft with a significant advantage.
    The settlement does not address publication of the proprietary 
networking protocol SMB/CIFS, which any competing operating system 
must support in order to network with Windows computers. Although 
Microsoft calls this the ``Common Internet File System'', 
it is undocumented. The settlement will be difficult to enforce. 
Microsoft violated the previous consent decree which was supposed to 
prevented it from charging OEMs for Windows on a per-machine (rather 
than per copy of Windows) basis. Nothing was done to Microsoft for 
violating this consent decree. A simpler solution would be to break 
Microsoft into two or more companies, one of which would own the 
Windows operating system and its successors, and one of which would 
own end-user applications. This approach worked well with Standard 
Oil and with AT&T. AT&T's situation was vastly more 
complicated than a Microsoft split would be because of the physical 
infrastructure involved and the overly specific way the settlement 
was written. In contrast, IBM was never split up. The IBM consent 
decree dragged on and on, providing a restraint on IBM's activities 
and hurting its international competitiveness. I do not want 
Microsoft's international competitiveness to be damaged. But I do 
not want them to become the only viable vender of software for large 
markets.
    Microsoft could be split into two companies fairly easily. Both 
companies could compete, both companies could be successful, and 
both could have high stock prices. This is the easiest way to ensure 
that Microsoft provides a level playing field for non-Microsoft 
software developers.
    Sincerely yours,
    Robert B Calhoun
    Qwerta Corporation
    249 Elm St
    Oberlin, OH 44074 00025038--0006



MTC-00025039

From: Nathan Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Following are my comments on the court's settlement with the 
convicted offender, Microsoft, Inc.
Nathan Myers
Placerville, California.
    1. It appears to me that all the proposed settlements treat the 
company as if it had not yet been convicted. Worse, they ignore the 
company's prior history of consciously circumventing the spirit and 
letter of court orders. This is a company whose officers have 
frequently denied the authority of the government to control its 
abuses. For the outcome of this case to be useful, it must not only 
prevent the company from harming the nation further, it must 
demonstrate to Microsoft and others that the law does have teeth 
even where a large and wealthy corporation is involved.
    2. The main public reason for limiting the severity of a 
sentence has been to avoid driving the offender entirely out of 
business, harming its employees, existing customers, and 
stockholders. With Microsoft's monopoly profiteering unchecked lo 
these many years, it is equipped with tens of billions of dollars to 
help it ride out any temporary inconvenience, regardless of 
severity. I see no

[[Page 27572]]

practical need to mute the terms in order to allow the company to 
continue operating. It can afford almost anything, for years.
    3. All the proposed settlements I have read were complicated and 
hard to administer, which probably would result in both successful 
circumvention and further litigation. Simplicity is essential. 
Furthermore, the burden of proof that the company is faithfully 
abiding by the terms must be on the company, not on the 
government(s) or the company's victims.
    4. The primary means by which the company has been able to 
cement its monopoly has been through enforcement of exclusionary 
contracts. One effective means of limiting its power would be to 
specify broad conditions under which courts are directed to rule 
against the company in disputes, despite contract terms or court 
precedents. (The company's monopoly and deep pockets inevitably tilt 
the scales, despite any settlement terms; the court should 
artificially tilt them back.)
    5. Another means by which the company has excluded competition 
has been to limit access to preferential prices to those who obey it 
(contract or no). This mechanism should be made unavailable by 
requiring that all products be available to anyone at a fixed price, 
regardless of circumstances, with no permission to tailor a product 
for a particular customer. Even volume discounts tilt the field 
against smaller competitors; the company has no immediate need to 
charge smaller customers more.
    6. The company has used its control of details of its 
products'' implementations to exclude competitors. It does this 
both by changing existing products in undocumented ways to make them 
incompatible with competitors'' products, and by keeping 
details of new products secret. Forcing the company to publish 
freely all details of the external behavior of their 
products--their ``APIs'', ``protocols'', 
and ``file formats''--would reduce this threat. (Note 
that exceptions for ``security details'' have already been 
proven unnecessary and actually harmful to security; given such an 
exception, critical competitive details could easily be concealed.) 
The company should be prevented from releasing products until the 
completeness and correctness of the documentation has been 
established, so it has incentive to document well.
    7. The company has eliminated competition by purchasing control 
of smaller companies that threatened to develop market share in 
areas it hoped to dominate. The company should be prevented from 
acquiring control of other companies, and should be forced to sell 
off subsidiaries and divisions that would place it in new markets.
    8. The company has acquired a large portfolio of patents which 
could be used as an alternative means to exclude (at least smaller) 
competitors. While they appear not to have used this mechanism much 
yet, once other avenues of exclusion are forbidden the company will 
be tempted to exercise exclusionary patent rights. These patents 
should be released into the public domain immediately.
    9. Much of the company's ability to attack markets comes from 
its cash reserve. This should be placed in escrow, and cash metered 
out for individual expenses once it is determined that they do not 
contribute to monopoly dominance.
    10. The penalty for failure to perform up to the terms of the 
final settlement should be the wholesale loss of trade secret and 
copyright status for the affected product(s).
    11. Those company officers who lied under oath and falsified 
evidence should immediately be prosecuted for perjury and 
obstruction of justice.



MTC-00025040

From: Dave Howe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/25 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello:
    If you want to fine them a billion dollars then fine them a 
billion dollars not equipment in kind or refurbished computers. 
Software CD's cost less than $ 1.00 with overheads fully accounted 
for. Add a $2.00 book and it's sold by M/S for between 
$100--$500....``Give'' it away and take a tax write 
off for half...what kind of penalty is this. Refurbished computers 
are worthless, my old computers won't run squat and no one wants 
them. Plus the ``free'' runs out and then you let them 
start charging for service??? If I could get the Government to help 
me gain a huge hunk of market share with a positive payout in 3 
years I'd do it also regardless of what you called it..
    Take the cash and get a penalty with teeth NOT dentures.



MTC-00025041

From: Patricia Riendeau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My commnets:
    I believe that the terms of the settlement are reasonable and 
fair to all parties, and meet--or go beyond--the ruling by 
the Court of Appeals, and represent the best opportunity for 
Microsoft and the industry to move forward.
    Patricia A. Riendeau
    Shareholder



MTC-00025042

From: Robert Crull
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
Robert John Crull
400 Breckenridge Dr. #4
Huntsville, Al 35802
Attn: Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Div.
Dept. of Justice
601 D St. NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Sirs:
    As a US citizen I am going on record as being opposed to the 
proposed anti-trust settlement with the Microsoft Corp. It is 
inadequate to punish them for past monopolistic practices and will 
not prevent them from engaging in future anti-competitive 
activities. Any fair settlement that protects the rights of the 
consumer and a strong competitive US economy must do two things:
    Microsoft must be forbidden from entering into exclusive 
agreements with computer hardware vendors that forbids those vendors 
from selling computers with non-Microsoft-based computer operating 
systems. They must also be forbidden from entering into agreements 
that, while allowing computer vendors to place alternative operating 
systems on their hardware, require that the Microsoft OS always be 
the primary boot-up operating system.
    Microsoft must be forced to publish all the data required to 
allow non-Microsoft programmers to write applications that interact 
with the Microsoft computer operating systems. There can be no 
secret or hidden access to the Microsoft operating system that only 
Microsoft applications writers are aware. Such hidden code gives the 
applications division at Microsoft an unfair advantage in writing 
their software.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Robert John Crull



MTC-00025043

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:48pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir:
    As a daily computer user, both at home and in my medical office, 
I have benefitted greatly from the software produced by Microsoft. 
It is inexpensive, easy to use and makes work and play easier on 
many different fronts. I strongly urge you to terminate the ongoing 
legal harassment of Microsoft and settle the case based on the 
agreement already negotiated by the DOJ and Microsoft. This will 
benefit consumers like me who want new and better software from 
Microsoft and do not want to see the Company spending its money and 
time defending itself from frivolous suits initiated by its 
competitors who now have the 9 remaining states as their hired 
goons. Thank you.
    Harvey W. Topilow, MD



MTC-00025044

From: Chris Holt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Take the settlement with Microsoft.
Chris Holt
1450 North 1st St. #80
Salinas, CA 93906
831-444-6396



MTC-00025045

From: Gene Coussens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I volunteer at a high school where I am trying to keep 30 
computers running for the students. My experience with MicroSoft 
(MS) has been extremely difficult and at times I could not run the 
required software.
    Security of software: MS has no protection against students 
changing the operating system and application programs unless you

[[Page 27573]]

purchase the professional version which is extremely hard to 
maintain. Using another operating system (Linux) the task would be 
trivial and the software would be secure. Since MS has a monopoly, 
the application software is only available to run under the MS 
operating system.
    Cost: MS requires licenses for each machine, for a connection to 
a server, a server license, and licenses for each application that 
is contained in a computer. The system is designed to maximize the 
number of licenses because you cannot run an application on the 
server (central computer) and get the results on the client (the 
users computer). Each machine must be a full system, on other 
operating systems one can run applications on the server and view 
the results on a stripped down machine in front of the user. All of 
the software for the other system is FREE. Each computer in our 
school has more than $150 worth of licenses again because MS has a 
monopoly and prevents software vendors from offering the same 
material on other operating systems. Because MS updates their 
software every two years we spend about $75 per machine each year, 
we call this the MS tax. If vendors try to offer their software on 
other operating systems MS will not license their application on the 
MS system.
    Ease of Maintenance: MS has been patching together an operating 
system based on a poorly designed core of software which has been 
updated every two years. Some application software will run only on 
some versions of the operating system and not on others. This makes 
a tangle of application software and different versions of the 
operating system on different machines. Keeping track of which 
program is where is very time consuming. On other operating systems 
there is a slow evolutionary migration of the software which does 
not require frequent updates and the system appears almost seamless 
and it is quite stable.
    XP Version of Office: MS has changed the licensing method and 
cost for the new version of Windows. Instead of bulk licensing for 
schools they now require that we keep track of each license 
separately. A machine description and the individual license 
assigned to that machine is registered with MS and we are not 
allowed to change parts of the computer without contacting MS for a 
reactivation of the license. This is method of forcing us to get 
permission to change configuration on our own computers is draconian 
in nature and we will do without rather than submit to these 
conditions.
    The settlement that is proposed does nothing to prevent the 
company from proceeding with these practices. Far from preventing 
abuse this settlement says that the company is correct and is free 
to find even more ways to fleece the public.
    The settlement that the remaining litigants are proposing is a 
far better agreement for protecting the public. In essence the MS 
operating system is now a standard imposed upon the industry and 
should be treated as such rather then the private domain of one 
company. The settlement proposed by the remaining states creates 
fair and open standards that will allow the application software 
companies to write software for the other operating systems, we can 
then give the end customer some choice in which system is best for 
their application.
    Respectively,
    Eugene Coussens
    retired Engineer, Hewlett Packard.



MTC-00025046

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please settle this case now. My recommendation is that everyone 
should just walk away from it all.
    Jim Landfield
    Tel 703-734-0840
    FAX 703-790-9049



MTC-00025047

From: lowilliams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:54pm
Subject: Litigation
    Sirs
    I have used computers since the sixties. I have worked with IBM 
operating systems, UNIX, DOS, and today use MICROSOFT Products. In 
the early days IBM tried to keep everything proprietary to their 
systems. For a number of years they were successful. For a while in 
the seventies the DOJ talked about breaking them up, fortunately 
nothing came of it. Then IBM became arrogant and figured that no one 
could ever compete with them. Their positions aided in the demise of 
Control Data and Univac. Then DEC came along with their smaller VAX 
but more capable systems using UNIX for technical computing. DEC 
greatly reduced IBM scientific computing business. Their place in 
the sun lasted until the mid eighties and then they in turn faced 
effective competition from HP. HP now holds a major part of the 
technical computing market. There were dozens of other companies 
that competed unsuccessfully for this market. IBM created MICROSOFT 
when they decided the IBM Personal Computer was never going to 
become big business. They let Bill Gates write the operating system. 
There were other small computers based on the INTEL, ZLOG and 
MOTOROLA single chip processors that used several other operating 
systems. In the early PC days I used a Radio Shack Model 4 (Z-80 
processor) with an operating system the name of which I can no 
longer recall. All this is just to show that companies come and 
companies go.
    With free trade, MICROSOFT will probably be strongly challenged 
by an Indian or Chinese software firm some time in the next 20 
years. The challenge will not come from AOL unless they spend their 
time and brain power in trying to make a better operating system, 
browser or what ever and beat MICROSOFT in the market place.
    MICROSOFT has created and enforced order out of chaos to the 
benefit of all humanity. Take word processing as an example. Since 
the early eighties I have used: ``Run Off'' a Digital 
Equipment product, ``Scripsit'' a Radio Shack Product, 
``Wolkswriter'' a ? product, ``Word Star'' a ? 
product, ``Word Perfect'' a ? product, and ``MS 
WORD''.
    With most of these other programs digital files were not 
compatible between computer systems or word processing programs. 
Today with MS WORD I wrote a book, with text and significant art, 
and sent it to my publisher in England in WORD format. The publisher 
can use it for the book without any conversion.
    From a users standpoint MICROSOFT products should be ubiquitous. 
One of the advantages the United states has over Europe and many 
parts of the world is the fact that 280 million of us speak about 
the same language. The world of personal computers should also speak 
one language and until the Indians or Chinese invent a better one, 
let it be MICROSOFT.
    The current agreement reached by the DOJ and MICROSOFT is a good 
one and should be implemented. Further suits by AOL and the other 
states should be ignored as frivolous. the Judge should tell AOL to 
compete on with better products rather than trying to get the 
government to restrain their competition.
    Laurence O. Williams
    1059 Oakwood Drive
    Alliance, Ohio 44601
    330 829 2963



MTC-00025048

From: Joe Parrette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    The settlement should be vacated and rewritten because of 
Microsoft's recent billing practices. They have become so onerous 
that only a monopoly could hope to survive. You have not done enough 
to disassemble this giant of business. Just look around at their 
liscensing practices for businesses.
    I am sorry I did not have more information to give you but this 
is just a quick note and reflects a recent change in my stance on 
this settlement. Up until a few weeks ago I really thought you 
should stop bothering MSFT but no more.
    Thank you for your time.
    Joseph Parrette



MTC-00025049

From: Charles Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it would be beneficial for the entire country to settle 
this case as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Charles L. Myers, D.V.M.



MTC-00025050

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion as a citizen of the United States of America 
that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust suit is a 
bad idea, and that it does not prevent further monopolistic abuses 
by the company. The best way (in my opinion) to resolve Microsoft's 
monopoly status is to break the company into several pieces.

[[Page 27574]]

    History has shown that dividing monopolies brings greater value 
than allowing them to remain intact. As examples, look at Standard 
Oil and AT&T--in the long term, these resulting multiple-
company systems resulting from each breakup were worth more, paid 
more taxes, and employed more people than either company ever would 
have on their own.
    Shareholders in these enterprises benefited as well from this 
growth--the value of their shares soaring as the individual 
companies competed against each other.
    Finally, because of the increased competition that was possible 
against AT&T and Standard Oil, even more economic growth could 
be experienced by the nation as outside competitors were able to 
grow as well.
    Thank you,
    Patrick Campbell



MTC-00025051

From: John Tanzillo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please complete this action as quickly as possible. The whole 
process has taken too long. Whichever way it goes is fine with me, 
just end this legal mess quickly.
    Thanks.



MTC-00025052

From: John Carothers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: split the company
    Greetings-
    I am writing to ask that you deal severely with Microsoft in the 
settlement process, as they clearly are a monopoly. Their market 
share of operating systems must be well over 90%. If that isn't a 
monopoly what is? This has been the case for over a decade. If that 
isn't a monopoly what is? They have unfairly come to dominate the 
web browser market as well with hard-ball tactics, yet many who have 
suffered dare not criticize them lest they suffer further. If that 
isn't a monopoly what is?
    Please bring competition to the market--don't let them 
``pay'' by giving away their software free and thus 
further establishing their monopoly. Split the company up!
    SIncerely,
    john carothers
    Dr. John H. Carothers
    Biology Instructor
    Cabrillo College
    Aptos, CA



MTC-00025053

From: Wayne Minor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish you would stop harrassing Microsoft. I use their products 
because they are the best value for the money. If you ask me, Apple 
is a monopoly-- you can only use their software on their 
hardware. But if apple was so good, everyone would use it. Anyway, I 
think my Justice department has better things to do than try to 
bring down microsoft. God bless america, you can build a company 
from nothing to something, and then your enemies can whine to the 
government to bring you down. Netscape lost out by having a poor 
product. Oh well......
    Wayne Minor
    Alcoa, TN 37701



MTC-00025054

From: Donna Aldinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:00pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
4074 N Gelding Drive
Prescott Valley, AZ 86314
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion about the recent settlement 
in the antitrust case between the US Department of Justice and 
Microsoft. First, I do not think my rights as a consumer have been 
infringed upon. Second, I think that Microsoft has not acted as a 
monopoly. They have consistently delivered quality products and have 
not taken unfair advantage of pricing.
    Microsoft has agreed to terms that go beyond the issues in the 
lawsuit. Microsoft must disclose internal interfaces and protocols 
within Windows, as well as grant computer makers broad new rights to 
configure Windows to actively promote non-Microsoft products. 
Microsoft has agreed to the terms in the settlement to bring a close 
to the litigation. The settlement is in the best interests of the IT 
sector, the economy, and the public. The alternative is further 
litigation that is costly to our nation.
    Please finalize the agreement and close the case as soon as 
possible.
    Sincerely,
    Donna Aldinger



MTC-00025055

From: Julian Dwyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to voice my thoughts on the Microsoft antitrust 
case. It seems amazing to me that the punishment for Microsoft, who 
has acknowledged monopolizing the marketplace with their operating 
systems and their browser, is for them to supply schools with grants 
and more computers with their OS and browsers on them. What has 
become of the Judicial Branch of the United States ?!?! How is this 
compromise acceptable? Why is it the AT&T has to split up based 
on government and Federal Court rulings, when they as far as the 
public knows were not as manipulative in their business practices as 
Microsoft?
    As I write this email, I am using Microsoft software-- 
because it is what Microsoft dictated to Apple that it made the 
default software. It is good software, but there are several other 
software vendors that make great email clients that will never be 
popular because they don't have the muscle of a giant like 
Microsoft, and can't get a foothold into the market because of that 
lack of power. I am an avid user of the Apple Macintosh. My entire 
office uses Apple products. Most of my friends do. We use it because 
it is a better computer, a better operating system. We use Office 
for Mac because EVERYONE else uses it-- and we need to share 
files with our clients. If it were up to me, I would probably still 
use Word-- although there is scant competition on the Mac 
platform, because it is a good product. At least I would have made 
that choice based on myself and not what I was forced into, as we 
are now. That it the difference.
    The Court has a major role to play in it's rule in delivering a 
verdict that is amenable to the American people. We have already 
been disappointed in the Court's deciding of the Presidential 
Elections. Bear in mind, that I am neither Liberal nor Conservative, 
Democrat nor Republican. I am, like many Americans a believer in the 
``American Way'' and always searching for Truth and 
Justice-- in its purest form.
    Microsoft will never change its business practices unless the 
Government of the United States, in particular the Department of 
Justice, does something that ensures that the American people have a 
choice, a real choice. Do what's right, stop the monopoly. Punish 
them justly and accordingly.
    Thank you,
    Julian Dwyer,
    Senior Art Director
    AD-TECH Communications, Inc.
    215 S. 21 Avenue
    Hollywood, FL 33020
    Tel: 954.923.1600
    Fax: 954.923.9005
    http://www.medadtech.com



MTC-00025056

From: Stewart Jenkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:01pm
Subject: Comments for Federal Register
    From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
    Punishment 
-bsPun'ish*ment-bs
, n. Severe, rough, or disastrous treatment. [Colloq. or Slang] 2. 
Any pain, suffering, or loss inflicted on a person because of a 
crime or offense. 3. (Law) A penalty inflicted by a court of justice 
on a convicted offender as a just retribution, and incidentally for 
the purposes of reformation and prevention.
    As defined, Microsoft has not been punished as a result of being 
found guilty. Microsoft was found guilty of violating both sections 
1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. It is unfathomable that the winner in a 
case, the United States government, would attempt to promote a 
compromise for the punishment. There is no compromise in punishment. 
Microsoft lost. They are to be punished.
    Justice will not be served by hastening a decision that will 
affect the people of this country or the security of this country 
and the world. Microsoft should not be allowed to use the events of 
September 11 to maintain their illegal monopoly under the guise of 
``national security''. Expediting a settlement will have 
no effect on defeating Al Qaeda. Allowing Microsoft to maintain its 
illegal monopoly, as has been suggested by the proposed settlement, 
will be to the detriment of our nation's security. In late December

[[Page 27575]]

2001, the FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center warned the 
American public that using the Universal Plug and Play feature of 
Windows XP would allow an attacker to execute any commands and take 
any actions they choose on the victim's computer. Other 
vulnerabilities exist and are listed on the FBI's web site. Using
    Microsoft products actually pose a national security risk. A 
thoughtful, deliberate punishment should be delivered to Microsoft, 
expediency be damned. Microsoft's monopoly must not be allowed to 
continue. The only acceptable punishments should include forcing 
Microsoft to publish their file format standards. Microsoft Word is 
the most common word processor used. Once you have a grammar 
checker, a spell checker, multiple fonts, a graphics processor/
importer, tables, frames, collaboration features and colored text, 
then what else is there to exploit? Yet, Microsoft introduces a new 
version of Word every year or so, its sole purpose being to make the 
previous version obsolete by changing the file format, or the way 
the text is stored on a computer. If I write a book using Microsoft 
Word 2000 and save it to a recordable CD, then I carry the CD to my 
publisher for publication of my book, I must be sure he can read it 
on his computer. If he only has a license for Word ``97, he 
can't open the file my book is stored in. The file format changed 
from 1997 to 2000, even from 1999 to 2000. Text is text, yet at 
Microsoft's discretion, I cannot use my own creation unless I 
maintain a Microsoft licensed product. Pretty powerful company, in 
that they can control how I might access my own intellectual 
property. Yet a common, or published file format can always be 
accessed. Others can program competing products to make it possible 
for me to access my intellectual property on Microsoft operating 
systems or other operating systems. Microsoft has all the control 
now.
    If anyone thinks Microsoft doesn't want to control the majority 
of the internet, they haven't been keeping up with the computer 
industry over the last ten years. Microsoft should be required to 
publish all current and future internet and networking protocols. If 
Microsoft does to networking protocols what it has done to document 
file protocols, we are only a few years away from their being able 
to control all internet access via their own protocols. They will 
have a hand in every transaction that takes place over the internet. 
No money will change hands, no commerce will exist unless Microsoft 
says so, via their control of the protocols used for internet 
commerce.
    The ability to buy an off the shelf computer system without 
Microsoft Windows for a lower cost than with Windows should be 
possible. It currently is not possible. Microsoft operating systems 
are installed on all consumer grade IBM PC compatible computers. I 
pay for Microsoft Windows whether I plan to use it or not. If the 
operating system was sold as off the shelf software, just as all 
other off the shelf computer software, the customer could then make 
an informed decision about which operating system would best suit 
their needs. This would also prevent Microsoft from creating pre-
load deals with manufacturers. The customer would commit to the cost 
of the operating system as a conscious act. Those that don't wish to 
use Windows could choose an open source or other commercial 
operating system and would not be forced to pay a Microsoft tax by 
buying a pre-installed version of Windows that they never planned to 
use. I currently have licenses for several Microsoft products that I 
have never used because I could not buy the computer without them. 
Why do I have to pay this cost? Because Microsoft says I do. --
    Stewart Jenkins
    Rt.2 Box 147G
    Gladewater, TX 74647



MTC-00025057

From: Erick (038) Vielka(a)Home noSpam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the DOJ
    As a concerned citizen and a person who makes a living with 
computers I feel an obligation to send you a comment on the 
Microsoft settlement. To the point, It is unjust. Microsoft was 
found to be a predatory monopoly. They still will admit no wrong. 
Their track record shows that they will not abide by the letter or 
spirit of this settlement. You seek to place certain people as 
``watchdogs'' over Microsoft yet you cripple them with 
non-disclosure. Personally I am not a big fan of breaking up 
Microsoft. However letting them retain all of their code as secret 
and sacred without prohibiting them fro adding additional 
``functionality'' is a free ticket for more them to 
continue as they always have. At the very least you must force them 
to document and disclose their api's this one action will allow 
others to start to compete on a fairer playing field. What your 
about to do is sentence everyone to continue to be unable to start 
to provide an alternative and build a business on it. Microsoft 
claims that Linux is competition. In many ways this is almost true. 
However because of Microsoft's history of co-opting creative peoples 
work changing it just enough and then adding a feature to their os 
the Linux community has been forced to adopt the GNU license. This 
means that most development is done for love and not money. This 
issue frightens many companies that would like to develop and market 
software to stay away. Microsoft will either steal their idea and 
put them out of business change their API's to not work with your 
software and cause you millions in bad press and development. Thanks 
for listening, please stop this embarrassment of a settlement from 
going forward. It is anti-competitive, it allows Microsoft to 
continue all of it's illegal practices, and it is plain unjust.
    Sincerely
    Erick Jones
    I am a registered voter, I do vote, And I have a long memory



MTC-00025058

From: Stacey Barrett
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 4:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It seems obvious that this settlement is not going to solve the 
problem of Microsoft's monopolizing ways. If anything, it just seems 
that justice can be bought. THIS SETTLEMENT IS A BAD IDEA!



MTC-00025059

From: arthurguay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I spent the majority of my professional career in the nuclear 
industry (feed materials, plutonium and tritium production) working 
for AEC prime contractors. As the PC made its debut, we all had the 
opportunity to test the software developed by Microsoft. Did we like 
it? You had better believe it! The early word processing and data 
base programs were a delight. As we moved into retirement, the 
Microsoft software was even better and we are all in unamimous 
accord that we wish Microsoft had come to us sooner.
    Don't stifle progress. Support Microsoft for what they have 
contributed to our society ; for what they have done for our kids 
and grandchildren and others'' parents and grandparents.
    It seems the major opponents to Microsoft's success are its 
competitors who can't compete with Microsofts'' capability and 
ingenuity.
    Arthur E. Guay
    Reno, NV.
    (775) 852 1074



MTC-00025060

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an IT profession and technologist I strongly object to the 
government's persecution of an industry leader. Our industry 
naturally determines a dominant player in a partcular area. 
Nonetheless, it is very competitive without the overbearing hand of 
government because of the rate at which technology moves and new 
dominant players are selected.
    Leave Microsoft alone. The case is wrongly motivated (unfairly 
protecting competitors and hurting consumers) and will only hurt the 
industry and the American economy.



MTC-00025062

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/25/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a programmer for 30 years, a University professor for 20 
years, and now as a faculty member in a department of Medical 
Informatics, I would like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment 
(PFJ) in United States v. Microsoft. I know that many of my 
collegues have written to you with detailed explanations about how 
the PFJ will allow Microsoft to continue to exercise effective 
anticompetitive conduct that continues its monopoly. I have read 
some of them. They are accurate and well argued. I urge you to read 
the message sent to you by Dan Kegel.
    I strongly support his view. Much of the PFJ has been crafted in 
such a way that it allows Microsoft to get around most restrictions, 
and many important restrictions are missing altogether.

[[Page 27576]]

    A software engineer can see this where perhaps a lawyer cannot. 
For one small but potent example, nothing in the PFJ requires 
Microsoft to release information about file formats. Note that 
undocumented Microsoft file formats form part of the Applications 
Barrier to Entry (``Findings of Fact'' paragraphs 20 and 
39). Why was this omitted?
    There are more agreggious problems with Microsoft's behavior 
that are not addressed by the PFJ. For example, Microsoft 
``encourages'' rumors that WINE, a program that runs under 
the Linux operating system and allows Windows programs to run under 
Linux, violates Microsoft Patents. Just what patents those may be 
has never been revealed, but this rumor has cut off funds and 
development that would have gone to the support of the WINE project. 
Microsoft does not promote the best technology.
    It innovates by buying up it's competition when it can, and by 
overwhelming it's competition with inferior substitutes packaged 
with Windows.
    The Proposed Final Judgement is not in the public interest and 
should not be approved without substantial repair.
    Dr. Robert Williams
    The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are 
not to be construed as representing the USU, the DoD, or the U.S. 
Government in any way.



MTC-00025063

From: Rob LaRiviere
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:04pm
Subject: My Opinion,
    My Opinion,
    MFST is still allowed to create new interfaces or modify 
existing interfaces in thier operating system before release without 
publication. This allows all internal applications, like Office 
apps, to utiltize these interfaces before anyone else has access... 
Giving the applications done by MFST a head-start.
    Rob



MTC-00025064

From: David Cole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a veeeeeeeeery bad idea
    It makes Microsoft's bad biz practices profitable.
    It doesn't prevent bad behavior, anymore than another promise 
from a fox to not eat any more chickens.
    David Cole
    Concerned U.S. citizen
    CC:0 David Cole



MTC-00025065

From: Sandy W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sandra Walker
229 Lee Street
Rock Hill, SC 29730
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The reason for this correspondence is to express my support of 
the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust case and to state 
I believe you should do likewise. For far too long Microsoft has 
been coerced into court, spending millions that it could be using to 
build better products and create jobs.
    The settlement reached will give computer makers broad new 
abilities to offer non-Microsoft products, either as separate 
operating systems or as components on Microsoft operating systems. 
This settlement will actually give competitors new advantages 
against Microsoft. Unbelievably, competitors still are condemning 
this settlement because they want something that is much more 
detrimental and unfair for Microsoft.
    I strongly urge you to support the settlement that is available 
in this case and to repel those interests that want to derail it.
    Sincerely,
    Sandra Walker
    He who ignores discipline comes to poverty and shame, but 
whoever heeds correction is honored.Proverbs 13:18, NIV



MTC-00025066

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to strongly defend Microsoft's actions in the marketplace 
and encourage those involved to minimize if not eliminate the 
penalties being assigned to Microsoft in the current settlement 
being proposed. Thank you for your time and attention.
    Adam Schmidt
    WebTone Technologies
    Atlanta, GA
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025067

From: david shaner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing regarding the Microsoft Settlement.
    Before getting some things off my chest I want to say that the 
Settlement penalizes Microsoft far more than either is necessary or 
deserved. If in the end you decided that Microsoft has to much say 
in contracts then your Settlement is more than enough to correct the 
situation and so just get the thing done. It is enough. The truth is 
that the case was never about Microsoft having too much power or 
even a monopoly; this case was never about truth or justice or even 
law. This case was always about a few competitors (for the most part 
competitors who were largely unaffected by Microsoft's contracts 
with OEMs) abusing the power of the state to protect markets, their 
overinflated prices and generally prevent Microsoft from competing 
with them. The law and the American legal system were used as a tool 
to attack and attempt to destroy a competitor. I cannot tell you how 
disgusted I was to witness what occurred in this case. What was 
evidenced is that law in this country is handmaiden to powerful 
politicians and popular culture. I hope to God I never get dragged 
into a court of law in this country because the truth is that if the 
judge doesn't like me the truth won't matter; the truth is that if 
there is political gain to be made by hanging me, the truth won't 
matter and I will be hung. Nine states have not agreed to the 
settlement because Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison and their ilk 
don't want the states to settle. Nine states have not agreed to the 
settlement because a few self-serving politicians think they can 
gain more power by not settling. There is absolutely nothing in 
their decisionmaking about an adequate settlement or a settlement 
that best serves consumers. Please salvage some respect for American 
Law and our justice system. Please show that antitrust law is at 
heart for consumers not for the few corporate creeps to hide behind 
when their ineptitude leaves their companies in danger of failing. 
Please just get the current settlement signed.
    Sincerely,
    David J. Shaner



MTC-00025068

From: Dan Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to express my dismay--or more accurately, 
utter disbelief--at the Justice Department's proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. I urge you to 
reconsider.
    The essential problem with the settlement is that it offers no 
punishment for the years of antitrust violations found by three 
federal judges. It offers only some weak guidelines for future 
behavior. This is equivalent to having a trial for a bank robber, 
finding him guilty, and then sentencing him to being nicer next time 
he robs a bank.
    I have been working with computers and as part of the computer 
industry for over twenty years. I have been a programmer, a student, 
a researcher, a manager, and the Chief Technical Officer of a 
company. I have worked for Fortune 500 companies and 3-person 
startups. I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science. I have used all sorts 
of computer operating systems dating back before Windows even 
existed. I have used the Internet for years, long before the World 
Wide Web was created. So I think I have a pretty good perspective on 
how the industry has changed, and what role Microsoft has played in 
those changes.
    Microsoft has portrayed itself, through advertising (as well as 
a fake letter-writing campaign) as an innovator flourishing in the 
free market. This simply flies in the face of the facts. Nearly 
every one of Microsoft's so-called innovations was either purchased 
from someone else or simply copied. In the latter case, the true 
innovators were then put out of business through Microsoft's illegal 
monopolistic practices.
    Here are just a few examples, known to even the most casual 
student of computer history. Which of these innovations came from 
Microsoft? MS-DOS, the operating system Microsoft provided for the 
original

[[Page 27577]]

IBM PC? No, that was created by Seattle Computer Products. It was 
originally called QDOS (for ``Quick and Dirty Operating 
System'') and was hurriedly bought by Microsoft after Bill 
Gates learned that IBM needed an operating system for its new PC. 
Gates told IBM that he had an operating system, then quickly went 
and bought one. The spreadsheet? No, that was VisiCalc, invented by 
Software Arts and later perfected by Lotus's 1-2-3.
    The modern word processor? No, there were many others, such as 
WordPerfect, before Microsoft Word.
    The ability to network PCs? No, Novell and Apple did that long 
before Microsoft.
    The graphical user interface? Hardly; SRI, Xerox PARC, and Apple 
all developed the ideas that Microsoft used in Windows. The Internet 
Explorer web browser? No, that was licensed from Spyglass, the 
company that commercialized the original version of an earlier 
browser called Mosaic, which was itself developed at a government-
funded research center.
    In fact, every one of those innovations was invented by another 
company and was available to consumers before Microsoft was 
involved. Microsoft's primary contribution to the computer industry 
has been in putting the true innovators out of business. It's gotten 
to the point where entrepreneurs avoid certain markets entirely 
because they fear the wrath of Microsoft.
    I am a capitalist, and I believe in the free market. Yet I also 
believe that when a company tilts the playing field by ignoring the 
laws that others are following, it must be held accountable. No one 
can bring back the many companies Microsoft put out of business. But 
if Microsoft were held financially responsible for the damage it has 
done, and made to give back its ill-gotten gains, then there would 
be an explosion of new innovations that would benefit all of us.
    Sincerely yours,
    Daniel E. Rose



MTC-00025069

From: Paschke, Kellie
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 5:08pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Comments Submitted in Support of the Proposed Microsoft 
Settlement Agreement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As Chair of the Iowa House of Representatives Judiciary 
Committee, I can appreciate how difficult it was to reach a proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust litigation. I am pleased to 
add my voice in support of that settlement, not because I agree with 
the entirety of the case or every single aspect of the agreement, 
but because it is time to move on. If accepted by the Court, this 
settlement will allow Microsoft and its competitors to continue the 
amazing innovation that has defined the past twenty-plus years while 
also defining the direction of the government's role in the high-
tech industry.
    Please continue to urge the Court to accept this settlement, 
because to do so will bring more certainty to an area of the law 
that can ill afford to be without it.
    Sincerely,
    Chuck Larson



MTC-00025070

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: American Atr,Microsoft ATR,ASKDOJ,president@whiteh...
Date: 1/25/02 5:08pm
Subject: A washingtonpost.com article from 
[email protected]
    You have been sent this message from [email protected] 
as a courtesy of the Washington Post
    (http://www.washingtonpost.com).
    SO, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THESE BACKHANDED DEALINGS! THE 
PEOPLE DESERVE AN ANSWER TO THIS!!!!
    To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/articles/A34746-2002Jan24.html Group Faults Disclosure 
of Microsoft's Lobbying
    By Jonathan Krim
    Microsoft Corp. and the Justice Department failed to make key 
public disclosures in connection with their proposed settlement in 
the company's antitrust case, an organization of antitrust lawyers 
and academics has charged. In a complaint filed yesterday with the 
federal judge handling the case, the American Antitrust Institute 
said Microsoft did not adequately report its lobbying activities 
about the agreement, as required by the federal law that governs 
antitrust settlements. Microsoft reported no conversations or 
contacts with members of the Bush administration about the 
agreement, except between lawyers who negotiated the deal, which are 
permitted. The disclosure law is designed to reveal any improper 
political pressure that might be exerted on the Justice Department 
on behalf of a company involved in legal action. Microsoft's report 
surprised many consumer groups and Microsoft opponents, who have 
watched the software giant spend upwards of $5 million a year on 
lobbying in Washington. In particular, Microsoft did not disclose 
any congressional lobbying in connection with the agreement. The 
company has said it is following precedent in other cases, in which 
only contacts with the executive branch have been reported under the 
law, known as the Tunney Act. The antitrust institute, which opposes 
the settlement, believes this interpretation violates the law, and 
hopes the judge will enforce it now. ``The Tunney Act is 
supposed to be a meaningful statute, providing meaningful 
disclosures that will inform the public so that it can fully 
evaluate an antitrust settlement,'' said Albert A. Foer, 
president of the organization. ``In this, the most important 
antitrust case of our generation, it is essential that the process 
be adhered to with care and commitment.''
    Microsoft spokesman Vivek Varma said the company's lobbying 
disclosure complies with the law and ``we are looking forward 
to court review of the settlement.'' But late yesterday the 
author of the law, former senator John V. Tunney (D-Calif.), filed 
an affidavit with the Justice Department saying Microsoft's 
disclosure violates the intent and letter of the act. 
``Congress meant members of the Executive, Legislative, and 
Judicial branches of government,'' wrote Tunney, now a lawyer 
in Los Angeles. ``Congress specifically intended to cover 
communications by officers of a defendant corporation, lawyers of 
such corporation, lobbyists of such corporation, or anyone else 
acting on behalf of such corporate defendant. If I had not been 
satisfied this was the plain meaning of the statute, I, as the 
principal author of the legislation, would not have pressed the 
legislation through to final passage.'' In addition to its 
concerns over the lobbying disclosure, the antitrust institute 
argues that the Justice Department failed to adequately explain why 
it limited the agreement to certain sanctions and rejected others 
that had been pursued by prosecutors in the Clinton administration. 
Foer said the judge should not rule on whether the agreement is in 
the public interest until Microsoft and the Justice Department 
comply with the disclosure provisions. He also said the judge should 
extend the period for public comment. Microsoft questioned the 
motives of the institute, saying it has received contributions from 
Oracle Corp., a Microsoft rival. Foer said Oracle does not influence 
policy at the institute and is merely one of many companies and 
organizations that have contributed small sums to it pay its bills. 
The Justice Department declined to comment on the institute's 
complaint, which was part of a flurry of activity as the long-
running Microsoft case enters a new and more complex phase. The 60-
day period for public comment on the proposed settlement is 
scheduled to end Monday, and both Microsoft and its rivals have been 
feverishly preparing their views for submission to the court. Trade 
groups supported by each side have been attempting to generate 
grass-roots support. In one incident, a telemarketing firm 
representing pro-Microsoft forces accidentally called one of the 
leaders of an anti-Microsoft coalition. Gauging public sentiment is 
difficult, however, because the Justice Deartment so far has 
declined to make the comments public. A department spokeswoman said 
past procedures dictate that all the comments must first be 
collected, and department responses drafted, before the material is 
submitted to the court and made public. The Justice Department has 
until the end of February to respond to the comments. After that, it 
will be up to District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to rule on 
the settlement. Meanwhile, however, she is scheduled to begin 
separate hearings on March 11 into whether tougher sanctions should 
be imposed on the company for violations of antitrust laws. Nine 
states and the District of Columbia balked at signing on to the 
federal settlement deal, and are pursuing the case on their own. And 
this week, AOL Time Warner sued Microsoft directly, seeking damages 
for its Netscape subsidiary, which was found by courts to have been 
hurt by anti-competitive acts by Microsoft.



MTC-00025071

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 27578]]

Date: 1/25/02 5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am pleased that this is finally coming to an end. We have 
better things to spend our time AND money on.
    Unfortunately, AOL has decided to continue this pursuit. My 
honest opinion is that Netscape lost its market share because they 
would not create a browser that complied with standards and ended up 
frustrating users.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025072

From: Jason Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. As a 
computer user, software developer, and American citizen, I am very 
unhappy with the terms of the settlement--they are easily met 
with little financial impact or effect on the way Microsoft 
operates.
    --Jason Bailey



MTC-00025073

From: Lewis Kopp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:09pm
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have been involved with computers since the late 70's, having 
built a MITS Altair 8800 computer, bought an Apple ][ in `79, 
and used everything from: a Kaypro ``portable'' computer 
that weighed around 25 pounds; DEC PDP-11/23's & 11/73's; 
DEC Vax and Alpha computers, Apple Macintosh computers, various 
brands of PCs (I was the micro-computer specialist for the Cleveland 
VA at one time); and so on. Up to the current PC's with Intel 
Pentium 4 processors and Macintosh G4s. I even have a paper tape 
backup of MITS Basic that, I believe, was the first product that 
Bill Gates wrote and sold.
    That paper tape also represents probably the last thing the Bill 
Gates wrote and originated. Since that point he has made use of his 
true genius as a marketing person and knowing what products to buy 
or copy to take Microsoft to the point where it virtually totally 
dominates the market. The courts have finally admitted what most 
people in the industry with an ounce of common sense have known for 
years--that Microsoft was, is, and with the current, proposed 
settlement will always be--a monopoly.
    Better products that Microsoft couldn't buy have been 
slaughtered in the market place by Microsoft's overwhelming 
advantage of writing both the operating system AND the primary 
business applications used under that operating system. Microsoft 
has NEVER had the best operating system, they have simply have one 
that is generally adequate along with a set of applications that are 
pretty good. But this combination and their marketing muscle have 
led to them dictating terms to businesses around the world. Due to 
the need for data compatibility between computers, people have been 
forced to use Microsoft products--whether they wanted to or 
not.
    The proposed settlement largely ignores reality and the way 
people and companies actually work. When a manager's salary depends 
on how many employees he manages, it is not likely that he will ever 
pick a product that would reduce the need for his employees. 
Consequently, Microsoft products are picked and Information Systems 
departments (especially the support departments) continue to grow. 
Along the same lines, consultants will rarely recommend a product 
that would not require them to come back and help train and maintain 
it. These realities mean that the proposed settlement is largely a 
farce and will not in any way curb Microsoft's anti-competitive 
practices. This is evident in the release of the latest version of 
their operating systems, Windows XP. Now users will basically be 
required to have an internet connection so that they can register 
their copy of XP. And this isn't just the first time they use it! 
No, they have to do this if they make too extensive of a 
modification to their computer--whether due to upgrading it or 
replacement of defective components as well as on a yearly basis. 
And the yearly registration isn't free! Sure, they get upgrades 
installed automatically during the year, but the upgrades get 
installed whether or not they want them! As a software engineer, I 
know that this is likely to be a nightmare for anyone who uses XP. 
User: ``The computer was working fine yesterday, but now it 
won't work. I didn't change anything so what happened?'' Tech: 
``Well, there's a problem with the latest update of XP for your 
particular model of computer. That update was installed 
automatically when you logged onto the internet this morning.'' 
Microsoft's new initiatives for copy protection of music and movies 
is yet another example of them using their dominance to dictate 
terms to the public and businesses. In this case, they may have some 
assistance from shortsighted Hollywood executives who will do 
anything they can to make it impossible for the average person to 
make fair use of music or videos that they buy, even though it 
doesn't prevent a determined professional from making copies that 
they can then bootleg and who represent the vast majority of illegal 
copies.
    Personally, I believe that Microsoft should be split into at 
least two companies--one systems software and one application 
software. The two companies should not be allowed to deal with each 
other anymore closely than either would with a third party company. 
This sort of solution would bring competition back into the 
marketplace instead of letting Microsoft continue on as they have in 
the past--which is what they did after the previous settlement 
and is what they will do if the proposed settlement is put into 
place. As a secondary issue, the monitoring process proposed would 
be a waste of taxpayer money as well as being totally ineffective. I 
urge that the proposed settlement be rejected and one put in place 
that will prevent the abuses that Microsoft has been perpetuating 
for so long! The courts have ruled that Microsoft is a monopoly. 
They should be treated as such and broken up.
    Sincerely,
    Lewis Kopp



MTC-00025074

From: Rusty Carruth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement falls far short of the minimum needed to 
address the violations of law, while it is a good start. One concern 
I have is related to the following story: http://www.linuxworld.com/
site-stories/2001/0820.austin.html which, among other things, says:
    ``There is an insidious aspect to a citywide, multi-year 
plan. It locks users into Microsoft products only. While the 
Enterprise Agreement doesn't specifically prohibit the use of other 
products, effectively it does. It's logical to assume that if you're 
paying for MS Exchange for three years why allow a department to 
consider an alternative. (Microsoft makes hay of this point in a 
Word-formatted white paper extolling the Enterprise 
Agreement.)''
    Motorola has apparently entered into one of these Enterprise 
Agreements with Microsoft, and from the way they (Motorola) are 
acting, it appears that the no-non-Microsoft-software effect may be 
more than just a side-effect, as Motorola is on a massive effort to 
REPLACE perfectly working non-windows (and free) mail (and other) 
tools with Microsoft's versions. Against the strong objections of 
those whose tools are being replaced. This indicates to me that 
Microsoft has made little, if any, change to its behavior. This 
behavior has resulted in the practices which were found to be in 
violation of the Sherman Act.
    Also, since Microsoft has used ``middleware'' to keep 
its operating systems monopoly, especially Internet Explorer, it 
seems that any kind of just settlement must include at least one, 
and possibly more, of the following remedies:
    (1) disallow Microsoft from developing, selling, or buying 
companies which develop or sell middleware (for a period of, say 7 
years from the date of the settlement, after which the limitation 
will be reduced) (note that this includes .net);
    (2) place Internet Explorer in the public domain or otherwise 
remove it from the suite of Microsoft tools;
    (3) place Windows in the public domain or otherwise separate it 
from the non-OS offerings of Microsoft;
    (4) require Microsoft to establish a fund, from which half of 
the cost of developing/porting software to non-Microsoft operating 
system(s) would be paid, to a maximum of $500,000 payment. This fund 
should have some amount of cash up front, with some percentage of 
Microsoft OS sales price being placed into the fund for some period 
of years (for example, 10% of the customer sales price would be put 
into the fund, paid by Microsoft on a quarterly basis, for the next 
7 years).
    (5) require Microsoft to become more than one company. In any 
case, the proposed remedy does not adequately address the misdeeds 
of Microsoft, nor does it even begin to redress the wrongs 
promulgated against the computer-using public.
    I am a computer professional. I write software on Unix systems, 
and I have been

[[Page 27579]]

directly (and very negatively) affected by Microsoft's predatory 
practices.
    Please note that I also support and strongly agree with Dan 
Kegel's Open Letter, which I will be a cosigner of.
    Thank you very much
    Rusty Carruth
    Rusty E. Carruth Email: [email protected] or 
[email protected]
    Voice: (480) 345-3621 SnailMail: Schlumberger ATE 
------
    FAX: (480) 345-8793 7855 S. River Parkway, Suite 116 
-bse/
    Ham: N7IKQ @ 146.82+,pl 162.2 Tempe, AZ 85284-1825 
V
    ICBM: 33 20' 44''N 111 53' 47''W http://
tuxedo.org/ï¿½7Eesr/ecsl/index.html
    ``Why would anyone choose a tool that is the primary virus 
vector of the known universe?''--me
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025075

From: GP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:09pm
Subject: An open letter concerning the Microsoft Anti-trust 
settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am categorically and diametrically opposed to any settlement 
with Microsoft corporation that:
    1. Fails to severely punish Microsoft for its crimes, and
    2. Does not apply the strongest remedies available to prevent 
those crimes from reoccurring
    You must make absolutely certain that Microsoft is forever 
prevented from ever again using its ill gotten market dominance and 
vast cash reserves to stifle fair competition and innovation in the 
U.S. computer industry. The damage already done has been great, but 
make no mistake--this company continues to use the same methods 
today that initiated this case. From all indications, it will 
continue to do so until strong legal action is taken to stop it.
    History will look back on this critical case and harshly judge 
whether our judicial system succeeded or failed when faced with such 
incomprehensible wealth and corrupting power. If you do not stop 
Microsoft at this time--and the hour is very late 
indeed--it will soon complete its stranglehold on all areas of 
the U.S. computer industry including the Internet and beyond and 
thus destroy the last great competitive advantage our country 
retains in the world market. History has clearly proven such rogue 
monopolies to be intrinsically the enemies of our democracy and free 
market system. Let this duly convicted criminal monopoly know you 
recognize it for what it truly is.
    Highest regards,
    Gary Piland
    CTO, VP Interactive
    Callahan Creek, Inc.
    CC:Gary 
Piland,[email protected]@inetgw,tjohns...




MTC-00025076

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft sttlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania,NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to voice my opinion in regard to the 
settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the government in 
November of last year. I feel that this issue has drawn on long 
enough and that it is time to end this dispute permanently. I 
support this settlement.
    Microsoft has pledged to disclose more information with other 
companies, such as certain internal interfaces in Windows. Microsoft 
has agreed to make available any protocols used in Windows operating 
system that are used to interface with any Microsoft server. These 
provisions will make it easier for companies to compete. 
Additionally, Microsoft will agree to be supervised by technical 
oversight committee created by the settlement.
    This settlement will enable Microsoft to get back to the 
business of technology. I support the settlement, and believe it 
should be implemented as soon as possible.
    Sincerely
    Fred Jimeian



MTC-00025077

From: Bud Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    Why doesn't AOL wake up and smell the roses and try cooperation 
once instead of running to the courts.
    The consumer would certainly benifit in the long run.



MTC-00025079

From: arthurguay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to look in your own offices and see the proliferation 
of the ``BEST BUYS FOR YOUR MONEY'' on your desks and the 
desks of your interns, aids, and secretaries. What do you see? 
INTEL-PROCESSOR- POWERED-PERSONAL COMPUTERS WITH MICROSOFT SOFTWARE 
Why do you see this combination? You see it because you bought the 
best. YOU MADE THE BEST BUY! If you need further substantiation of 
your SMART BUYS, go to the Senate and House offices and you will 
find the same best-of-breed buys.



MTC-00025080

From: Helen Froyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:15pm
Subject: Antitrust settlement between Dept of Justice and Microft
    Sirs: This lawsuit has continued long beyond any reasonable time 
period. Probably because it should have been thrown out before it 
began. However at the present time the provisions for settlement go 
far beyond what you deserve and I urge you to accept the settlement 
without further delay.
    Sincerely
    Helen Froyd.



MTC-00025081

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly feel that the government should settle this suit and 
get on with cleaning up the laws controling all industries and 
standardize regulation on all government department and their 
personal to assure that they enforce the laws to the benefit of the 
public not industry self interest.
    John Bendokaitis
    17182 Eastview Dr
    Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44023



MTC-00025082

From: Terry Egan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:15pm
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.

[[Page 27580]]

    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,
    Terrence M. Egan
    [email protected]
    Geodesic Tripoint
    Cupertino,CA



MTC-00025083

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why is the government wasting their time and our tax dollars by 
letting AOL get away with this. As anyone wonder why AOL has to sue 
in order to compete? Could it be that Microsoft has a better 
product? I think so. I use IE because it is far better than 
Netscape.
    AOL spends its time and money to gobble up all the smaller ISPs 
such as CompuServe. They want the competition to go away so they 
don?t have to compete in a free market. I know they are not using 
the money to improve AOL's infrastructure. I can tell you some 
horror stories about AOL and their poor service from my own 
experience and others.
    I have always wonder why is Microsoft being accused of being a 
monopoly while a company such as AOL Time Warner is not considered a 
monopoly. IF AOL can not survive on it's own without help from the 
DOJ, then it should be allowed to fold due to it's own poor product 
and service.
    Thank you for reading my views.
    Lawrence Ohnheiser
    Aiea, Hawaii



MTC-00025084

From: Joseph Kitchenman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Mr. Attorney General:
    Please advise the competition of Microsoft to stop crying and 
build a better product! The market place will go with the winner and 
we all will enjoy their new and wonderful products, as we have done 
with Microsoft.
    This is the American way of business.
    When you rip off Microsoft we all lose.
    Thank you.
    Joseph Kitchenman



MTC-00025085

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    End this now.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025086

From: Karl Klein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    It would be a sad miscarriage of justice if the proposed remedy 
results in the elimination of the one market (education) where MS 
does not wield complete monopoly power.
    The terms of this settlement are completely puzzling to me. How 
do the terms of this settlement compel Microsoft to change it 
practice(s)? Please revisit the terms of this settlement and be sure 
that it does not ``reward'' Microsoft with a complete 
monopoly in every aspect of computing-- including education.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Karl W. Klein
    Instructional Technology
    Education Department
    PO Box 2000
    State University of New York College at Cortland
    Cortland, NY 13045
    [email protected]
    607.753.2444 (voice)
    607.753.5976 (fax)



MTC-00025087

From: Paul Mugar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2 Inez Street
Camarillo, CA 93012
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I understand the Courts will make a final decision at the end of 
this month on whether the proposed Microsoft settlement will benefit 
the public. I believe it's fine as long as Microsoft is left 
standing, when it's all said and done. If the nine states are 
allowed to overturn the agreement and move ahead with additional 
litigation, it could take another three years and billions in legal 
expenses all incurred by the consumers and the taxpayers. How is 
that a benefit? Microsoft has agreed to not enter into any 
agreements obligating any third party to distribute or promote any 
Windows technology exclusively or in a fixed percentage, subject to 
certain narrow exceptions where no competitive concern is present. 
The Company has also agreed not to enter into agreements relating to 
Windows that obligate any software developer to refrain from 
developing or promoting software that competes with Windows. From 
this one could see that Microsoft is more than willing to cooperate 
in order to resolve this issue.
    I urge you to end this now. No more action should be taken at 
the Federal level.
    Sincerely,
    H. Mugar
    cc: Representative Elton Gallegly



MTC-00025088

From: rbf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:25pm
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
    Dear Ms Hesse,
    I would like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgement pursuant 
to the Tunney Act. The settlement does not deal with software 
incompatibilities introduced by Microsoft to impair competing 
products, or with their corruption of open standards to the same 
end. This has been a favorite anti-competitive tactic of theirs, 
which they have the temerity to call `innovation'.
    The definitions of ``middleware'' & 
``API'' are excessively narrow, permitting Microsoft to 
evade them with semantic manoeuvres

[[Page 27581]]

such as calling a communication protocol an administrative protocol. 
It does not deal with Microsoft's continuing anti-competetive 
behavior since the original judgment, such as tying windows XP with 
.NET. It allows Microsoft to continue milking the public & 
frustrating competition by introducing undocumented changes in 
Office formats. It allows Microsoft to continue licensing practices 
intended to prevent competing products from being installed under 
their operating system. It relies on behavioral remedies which have 
in the past been quite ineffective with Microsoft, who simply 
disregard any agreements to cease their deprecated practices .
    I have been a software practitioner for over 25 years. In my 
experience, Microsoft are without peer in the shoddiness of their 
products. If they were required to compete on the merits, they would 
not enjoy their present monopoly, consumers would have reliable 
computing facilities, & the business world would not be spending 
$10 billion a year remedying Microsoft's cavalier disregard for 
quality.
    While time is on the monopolist's side, & it would benefit 
the public to settle the case before Microsoft can extend its 
monopoly further, the proposed settlement is not in the public 
interest & should be rejected.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    --Rich Fuchs [email protected]
    Richard B. Fuchs
    1117 Hamilton Ln.
    Burlingame, CA 94010-3346
    (650) 697 7214



MTC-00025089

From: S T
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whoever reads this
    My Opinion on this is that you are letting Microsoft off the 
hook. I completely disagree with letting them off because as both a 
user and a technical support person, I am sick and tired of dealing 
with their mess of overly integrated software. I feel that I have 
been forced to use Microsoft Operating systems, and product, do to 
Microsoft's Monopoly Why can't I run office on Linux?, Why do I have 
to spend hours pulling my hair out trying to fix a damaged system 
that could be easily fixed if I could remove unwanted pieces of the 
bundled software the installs with a Microsoft OS? I am getting more 
and more tied of them limiting how I can control my computer. If I 
was given a chose to run a Microsoft OS or a version of Unix/Linux I 
would run Unix, because it is stabler, more configurable, and I have 
the ability to replace any part of the system I want. Plus I can 
find what any part of the operating system does, because of how 
available information is on the subject. This isn't the case with 
Microsoft. I have purchased their technical manuals which for the 
most part are a joke, and have been getting worse as the years go 
by. This is a very short list of things that cause me problems, and 
I don't want to force who ever read this to go on and on. So to sum 
things up please force Microsoft to change currently they have 
control and the ability to kill off any one who gets in their way 
please stop this from continuing.
    Thank you
    Sam Taxis



MTC-00025090

From: Stanley A. Klein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my view, Microsoft has used a large number of approaches in 
maintaining its monopoly. The proposed settlement essentially gives 
Microsoft a government-endorsed license to continue using many of 
these approaches. Two issues that I will address are the business 
model apparently assumed by the proposed settlement and Microsoft's 
use of its office application proprietary data formats as a means of 
maintaining its monopoly. Implicitly Assumed Business Model
    The proposed settlement appears to implicitly assume that the 
basic business model of the software industry is the closed source 
model. Under this model, which is used by Microsoft and many other 
companies, the intellectual property in the software is kept as the 
proprietary property of the provider. Source code and much of the 
documentation are disclosed only under limited circumstances, 
generally involving payment of fees and execution of non-disclosure 
agreements.
    Continued dominance of this business model in the marketplace is 
very much in the interest of Microsoft, and is especially reflected 
in the requirement of Clause (ii) of Definition N that defines a 
Non-Microsoft Middleware Product as one distributing at least one 
million copies a year. There is another business model, known as the 
free software or open source business model. (The term 
``free'' in ``free software'' is in the sense of 
libre, not necessarily in the sense of gratis.) In this business 
model, the intellectual property in the software is dedicated to 
what Lawrence Lessig calls an ``innovation commons.'' 
There is no fee, royalty, or permission required for the right to 
obtain the source code, or to copy, modify, or distribute the 
software. The details, history, implications, and important public 
benefits of this business model are best explained (in terms 
understandable by legal professionals) in Lessig's book ``The 
Future of Ideas.''
    According to numerous press reports, many public statements of 
its executives, and (in at least one case) an explicit provision 
included in a non-negotiable end user license agreement, Microsoft 
regards the free/open-source business model as a major potential 
competitive threat. The inclusion of clause N (ii) of the settlement 
allows Microsoft to refuse to provide rights under the settlement to 
products of ISV's who adopt the free/open-source business model.
    For example, it may be almost impossible to determine how many 
copies of a free/open-source middleware product or software 
application are distributed in any given year. The software is 
freely copyable and redistributable by anyone. There is no license 
registration required under the free/open-source business model, and 
no other indication that a copy has been distributed unless the user 
has contracted for value-added services (such as warranty or 
support) from a particular distributor of the software. As a 
minimum, Clause N (ii) should be deleted. In addition, the entire 
settlement should be reviewed to ensure that none of its provisions 
allow Microsoft to withhold rights under the settlement from ISV's 
who are part of the community surrounding the free/open-source 
business model. In that community, a relevant ISV could be a single, 
technically-qualified individual who makes significant contributions 
of software to the innovation commons on a spare-time basis. This is 
reasonable, because software produced by such individuals is often 
used by millions of users. Office Applications
    In my experience, one of the major approaches used by Microsoft 
in maintaining their monopoly is through their office applications, 
including Word (word processing), Excel (spreadsheet), Powerpoint 
(presentation slides), and Access (database). This approach would 
have been blocked had Microsoft been broken up as provided in the 
original decision of Judge Jackson. The break-up having been 
disallowed by the Appeals Court, there need to be provisions added 
to the settlement that block this approach. Microsoft maintains its 
monopoly through its office applications by using proprietary file 
formats that can only be properly interpreted or produced by 
Microsoft products that run only on Microsoft operating systems. I 
am an independent consultant in computers, communications, and 
management science. I have long preferred office applications 
produced by competitors to Microsoft. My preference is based on what 
I regard as the superior functionality of those products. However, 
when I wish to exchange documents with clients or with other 
participants in professional committees, I am often forced to use 
formats compatible with Microsoft office applications or to use the 
Microsoft office applications themselves. Attempting to use third 
party software with Microsoft proprietary formats often leads to 
difficulty, because Microsoft uses a variety of technical and legal 
measures to make it difficult for competing applications to 
interpret or produce documents in their proprietary file formats. As 
a result, it is very difficult for a user to avoid using Microsoft 
applications and Microsoft operating systems if the user desires to 
exchange office documents with other users. Examples of the measures 
used by Microsoft include making the formats for new versions of an 
office application incompatible with the formats of previous 
versions and prohibiting reverse engineering in their non-negotiable 
(``click-wrap'') end user license agreements.
    To prevent Microsoft from using such measures, I believe that 
the settlement be amended to:
    1.Require Microsoft to openly disclose all details of its 
proprietary file formats, and
    2.Require review by the Court of all Microsoft non-negotiable 
end user license agreements to ensure that the terms and conditions 
of such agreements do not support maintenance of Microsoft's 
monopoly. To remedy the Microsoft monopoly will require an extensive 
period of transition during which users can be expected to use both 
Microsoft and competing office applications. The period of 
transition (and therefore the

[[Page 27582]]

duration of the settlement requirements) should run at least ten 
years.
    Stanley A. Klein
    Principal Consultant
    Stan Klein Associates, LLC
    P.O. Box 2523
    Rockville, MD 20847-2523
    301-881-4087



MTC-00025091

From: ESS Computers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ESS Computers, Inc
1807 HWY 31 SW
Hartselle, AL 35640
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to inform you that I believe that the settlement 
reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice regarding 
the antitrust suit will be a benefit to the IT industry as a whole. 
The suit has delayed the progress of the technology sector, while 
along also slowing down the economy. The politicians that carry on 
litigation against Microsoft have continued to dig further and 
further into taxpayers'' pockets to fund their personal 
crusade. This must be stopped. Microsoft has agreed to not retaliate 
against any OEMs that may ship software that competes with the 
Windows OS. Microsoft has also agreed to the establishment of a 
three person ``Technical Committee'' that will monitor its 
compliance to the agreement.
    It is time to put this suit behind us. We cannot go on depleting 
public resources for an issue that has come to a conclusion. All 
that remains now is that you make certain that the settlement is 
finalized, and Microsoft is allowed to return to doing what it does 
best: innovate.
    Dinah Horner
    President



MTC-00025092

From: Dennis F. Kahlbaum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I will make this brief.
    I am in total disagreement with this so-called 
``settlement''. Microsoft has been rightfully convicted as 
being a monopoly, and therefore should be severely punished. This 
``settlement'' is simply a slap on the wrist and will NOT 
change this company's predatory and dominating behavior. The DOJ has 
wasted years of effort, and money, if this ``settlement'' 
is adopted. I strongly urge the DOJ to reconsider its position and 
do whatever it takes to allow FAIR competition to return to not only 
the computer operating system market, but to whatever Microsoft 
decides to conquer next (PDAs, Gaming Consoles, etc.)
    Thank you.
    Dennis F. Kahlbaum



MTC-00025093

From: Harry Binswanger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:24pm
Subject: Comment on MSFT settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I think any attack on Microsoft is unjustifiable. They have done 
nothing other than create and market software--which anyone is 
free to use or not, regardless. There's been no coercion and no 
charge of coercion against Microsoft.
    It looks like they are being prosecuted for the 
``sin'' of being ``too successful``--i.e., 
providing ``too much'' value.
    No, I am not a Microsoft employee or stockholder--and I 
don't even like a lot of Microsoft's software. E.g., I use Netscape 
as my browser. And I use XyWrite instead of Word. Supposedly, I'm 
not ``free'' to do that--but I am. I am able to 
decide for myself.
    Microsoft should be lauded for its success, not hobbled by 
government's coercive powers.
    Regards,
    Harry Binswanger, Ph.D.
    President,
    TOF Publications, Inc.
    Harry Binswanger
    [email protected]



MTC-00025094

From: Jerry Clabaugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    ``None of the people who run divisions are going to change 
what they do or think or forecast. Nothing.''
    -Bill Gates, interview in The Washington Post on the 1995 
consent decree, August 1995
    ``The practices Microsoft agreed to forgo had already 
served their purpose. Gates was right when he summed up the effect 
of the [1995] consent decree in one word: ``Nothing.''
    -James Gleick, ``Making Microsoft Safe for 
Capitalism''
    The present Consent Decree has many shortcomings which render it 
ineffective in ``unfettering the market from Microsoft's 
anticompetive conduct''. In particular, the Technical 
Committee, which has been characterized as a major concession by 
Microsoft, gives the proposed Decree the appearance of meaningful 
enforcement while moving the reality of enforcement beyond reach. 
These are some of the difficulties with the Technical Committee:
    (1) The Committee has wide powers to look at documents and 
interview individuals, but has no power to cause Microsoft to behave 
differently.
    (2) The information gathered by the Committee will be 
confidential, unlike information gathered in the past by the Justice 
Department, further complicating enforcement (B9).
    (3) Since Microsoft appoints one of the first two members, and 
the third member will be appointed by the first two, Microsoft is 
permitted to establish a committee with a majority of members who 
have no interest in enforcing the consent decree, even if thay had 
the power to do so.
    (4) The members are supposed to be individuals who are experts 
in software design and programming (B2), while they will also 
require expertise in antitrust law and history.
    Even though the terms of the proposed Decree are very relaxed, 
Microsoft, if it remains under the same management and philosophy of 
the 1990's, will pay no heed to the proposed Decree. If the Decree 
is accepted, we will be in the same position as in 1996, with a 
decree in place, but no enforcement options beyond bringing yet 
another antitrust action.
    It is my belief that breaking up Microsoft would be a bitter 
experience, full of dislocations for all those with an equity in 
Microsoft; managers, employees, stockholders, and customers. Yet 
when the antitrust action is brought yet again, the only reasonable 
remedy then will be a breakup. The only measure we can take now to 
prevent this outcome is to provide meaningful, effective enforcement 
in the current case.
    The Committee only impedes the job of enforcement. The 
dissenting States'' proposal does include real enforcement 
terms, and is a preferable alternative to the proposed Consent 
Decree.
    I have focussed on the Technical Committee, but the present 
Decree gives Microsoft the imprimatur of the Department of Justice 
to pursue many anticompetitive strategies. Reading the proposed 
Decree without context gives one the impression that it was the 
government that was found guilty of interfering with Microsoft's 
right to abuse its monopoly. If I have read the news accounts 
correctly, then it is instead the case that every federal judge who 
has had to evaluate the Microsoft's behavior (nine, to date) has 
found Microsoft guilty of abusing its monopoly. Why then, are there 
so many limitations and exceptions? Is Microsoft in such danger of 
being unfairly treated by law enforcement, when that enforcement has 
been vindicated again and again by the courts?
    The proposed Decree unfairly limits the ability of the public to 
seek enforcement of antitrust law against Microsoft, and should 
therefore be discarded. Even a simple fine would motivate management 
at Microsoft to learn about the meaning of antitrust law, without 
limiting the rights of the public.
    In addition, the proposed Decree does nothing to ``deny 
Microsoft the fruits of its violations of the Sherman Act'', as 
instructed by the Appeals Court.
    The importance of implementing an effective remedy looms larger 
than ever before, since computer security is now an issue that needs 
very serious attention in the United States:
    ``In a report released this month titled ``Cyber 
Threats and Information Security: Meeting the 21st Century 
Challenge,'' the Center for Strategic and International Studies 
(CSIS) concluded that the government and the private sector should 
be concerned about the ``trustworthiness'' of future 
Microsoft products''
    -cnn.com, December 29, 2000
    ``Gartner recommends that enterprises hit by both Code Red 
and Nimda immediately investigate alternatives to IIS, including 
moving Web applications to Web server software from other vendors, 
such as iPlanet

[[Page 27583]]

and Apache. Although these Web servers have required some security 
patches, they have much better security records than [Microsoft's 
web server software] IIS''
    -Gartner Group, September 19, 2001
    The fact that Microsoft's attitude toward security remains so 
casual, despite many high-profile security failures is an indication 
of the unhealthy effect of their monopoly power. In a competitive 
market, competitive pressure should have caused Microsoft to 
``clean up its act'' with respect to security. Today, the 
United States cannot afford an unrestrained predatory monopoly in 
computer software.
    Besides security, the other important reason to reject to 
proposed Decree and instead insist on real enforcement is economic: 
Microsoft's policy of extinguishing innovation that it cannot co-opt 
certainly has benefitted Microsoft and its investors, but threatens 
the larger United States economy.
    The Microsoft monopoly and the consumer software market emerged 
simultaneously, so no one can say what the economic benefits of 
antitrust enforcement would be. I can only hope that the Court will 
give prosperity a chance.
    I am in no way a competitor of Microsoft. Thank you for the 
opportunity to be heard,
    Jerry Clabaugh
    20 Magoun Street
    Cambridge, MA 02140



MTC-00025095

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This anti-trust suits against Microsoft are awful for our 
economy and for the consumer's. The only people that benefit are 
lawyers & Microsoft competitors that want to overcharge for 
their inferior products. I think the government is punishing 
Microsoft for being successful.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025096

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am writing to express my support for Microsoft in its attempts 
to reach a settlement on the antitrust action.
    It pains me to see valuable resources in the government and at 
Microsoft wasted on litigation that ultimately has backfired and 
ceased innovation. As a computer consultant, I am not an agent of 
Microsoft, but like many others I use their products and development 
tools in my work. For years people have had a choice concerning 
which operating system and browser to use on their office and home 
computer. Did Microsoft strong-arm dealers into selling its 
operating system with the hardware? How can this be? Consumers in 
the real world demand and need an operating system for these 
machines at purchase time. ``OEM'' licenses grow out of 
CONSUMER DEMAND, not the demands of a software giant. Does Microsoft 
benefit? Of course they do. How does this hurt innovation? It is in 
Microsoft's perpetual interest to innovate because the demands of 
consumers grow each year; new peripheral and hardware technology 
demands new operating systems and browsers as well as new 
applications to handle the merging of these technologies. In fact, 
Microsoft depends on the new revenues from new versions of its 
operating system. A well-known criticism of Microsoft is that they 
charge for upgrades and new OS versions. However, people buy these 
updates despite the fact that it is still possible to perform all 
personal and business work running Windows 95 on older machines. Why 
do people buy the new systems? It usually to take advantage of new 
hardware or third party technology. Does SUN or AOL Netscape suffer? 
Simply put, there is no AOL without Windows. There is no Netscape 
browser without Windows. It is utterly ridiculous for these 
companies to claim injury while they ride on the backs of the 
Microsoft operating system themselves. Could operating systems be 
better? Of course they can, but creating an OS for machines made by 
a myriad of manufacturers and sold in an infinite number of 
configurations by various retailers is a large task. I do not see 
SUN or AOL creating operating systems that are better. I do not see 
the R&D dollars going towards creating a better mousetrap. This 
is because litigation has replaced innovation at these companies. 
Would it be difficult to create an operating system that individuals 
and businesses would flock to? Yes, of course; unless this OS could 
run existing business applications and handle existing hardware. 
This is a tall order and until someone else comes along, Microsoft 
is filling the need. Not only that, Microsoft helps developers use 
its technology in offering free seminars and classes. Bookshelves 
are filled with ``How To'' manuals on MS development 
because it is easier to build on Windows than to create an OS from 
scratch. This is just smart business practice on the part of 
Microsoft, not unfair.
    A case in point to illustrate the Microsoft scenario: Coca Cola 
and Pepsi have demanded exclusive contracts with supermarkets and 
fast food chains for years with a minimal amount of antitrust action 
against them. When Royal Crown was pushed out of these markets, they 
claimed that Coca Cola and Pepsi engaged in unfair business 
practices. How often do you see RC in these markets now? Litigation 
cannot change consumer demand. For all intent and purpose, two cola 
manufacturers held a monopoly. Do you think supermarkets and 
McDonalds complained that they had to stock Coke? Of course not. As 
far as the packaging of the Internet Explorer browser with the 
Operating System goes, it is unbelievable that this simple concept 
of integrating the browser with the OS has escaped the Justice 
Department and the judicial system. An Operating System IS A BROWSER 
for your hard drive. With technology tending towards Wide Area 
Networks and Internet services, it is naturally the next step to 
integrate and combine the browser with the OS. This innovation and 
simplification has been destroyed by the government and judging from 
the recent action taken by AOL Netscape, it will be even further 
delayed if not killed altogether.
    I hope you understand that I do not work for Microsoft. I 
regularly use IBM technologies with many clients including Lotus 
Notes, AS400 and DB2 databases. These products and services have 
their place in the market too. In fact, I believe XML technology 
stems from IBM, if I am not mistaken. How has Microsoft reacted to 
this? Well, rather than sue IBM or other creators of XML, Microsoft 
has INTEGRATED and ADOPTED this technology and INCORPORATED it in 
its new products. Sounds like a smart business practice to me.
    So, if AOL wants to make a browser, let them. If SUN wants to 
recapture some portion of a market they never had, let them create 
their own OS. That is what Apple has been doing for years. Do they 
have the large part of the market? No, but they are innovative and 
successful in their market. In this time of recession and economic 
recovery, please do us all a favor and help redirect the resources 
being wasted in this antitrust action.
    Craig Shaynak
    CRS Consulting
    (323) 661-6927
    (213) 499-0972 pager
    CC:Kurt Eric Schenk (E-mail)



MTC-00025097

From: Greg Smethells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a monopoly. This has come about because Microsoft 
does not play fair when it comes to interfaces that allow 
interaction with their software or by-products of their software. A 
major component of this, in the simplest form, is file formats. The 
major problem different operating system have when interacting with 
Microsoft's OS is that their competing applications do not properly 
handle the file formats that are prevalent everywhere due to the 
Microsoft monopoly.
    A remedy would be to enforce all Microsoft file formats to have 
open specifications that must be correct for periods of time (no 
lying in the specification). Any changes to the specification would 
need to be broadcast so that others had time to react. No hurt to 
Microsoft can come from that aside from better competition. A better 
solution would be to open-source the code that implements 
utilization of the file formats in all manner of ways. It would also 
be wise to enforce that writing programs to these specifications 
work in almost all cases before assuming that indeed the code and 
specifications for important protocols is truly opened up. The best 
solution would be to enforce the openness through a standards 
committee run by third-party individuals from academia who have no 
ties to Microsoft, Sun, or Linux companies (Red Hat, etc).
    Only when the Microsoft monopoly file format's, protocol's, and 
interface's specifications are open-sourced, correct, and 
unchangeable for extended periods, can we assume that others will be 
able to compete.
    Greg
    Gregory J. Smethells
    Computer Science Graduate Student
    University of Wisconsin--Madison

[[Page 27584]]



MTC-00025099

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:25pm
Subject: Settlement is bad for me...
    The settlement does nothing to stop MicroSoft from destroying 
Real Audio the same way that it destroyed Netscape. The settlement 
does nothing to prevent MicroSoft from making it's online service 
incompatible with other operating systems and browsers, which it has 
already done for a short period, to maintain it's monopoly in 
desktop operating systems and browsers, or devising other novel 
methods to illegally protect it's monopoly. The settlement does 
nothing to prevent MicroSoft from making it impossible for free 
software developers to adapt their software to operate in conjuntion 
with software on platforms running MicroSoft operating systems, 
again to illegally protect it's monopoly.
    Obviously what would be best for all would be for MicroSoft to 
come to its senses and accept the responsibilities of being a law-
abiding corporate citizen. What is gained for the public by 
punishing MicroSoft?
    Unfortunately, MicroSoft is unwilling to do this, as it has 
shown by the ambiguous, legalistic language that it has used to 
describe it's future conduct and it's continuing defence of past 
conduct that both a District Court judge and a unanimous Appeals 
Court have found to be illegal. Unfortunately, by not 
``punishing'' MicroSoft, not only will MicroSoft be 
encouraged to continue its predatory, illegal, anti-competive 
practices, but others will also. Please spare us.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025100

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is absolutely fair in my opinion. Why do 
less successful, talented and innovative companies feel that the 
only path to success is through litigation. They should concentrate 
on building better products.
    The settlement should be accepted.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025102

From: Jorge Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my name to those who think the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft is not good.
    Jorge Martin
    Addison, VT



MTC-00025103

From: Robert N. Brauer
To: Microsoft Comment
Date: 1/25/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    The following proposal is intended as a public comment on the 
Proposed Final Judgement under the Tunney Act. Executive summary
    The Justice Department's proposed antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft seems to demand that Microsoft do more to open up its 
application programming interfaces (APIs) to commercial competitors. 
A more effective remedy would be one that required Microsoft to 
standardize and publicize the entire set of Windows APIs and the 
file formats of its Office applications with the express goal of 
allowing all competitors, including non-commercial developers, to 
build Windows software applications and operating systems that 
compete with Microsoft on a level field. Proposal
    The Justice Department's proposed antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft seems to demand that Microsoft do more to open up its APIs 
to competitors. This addresses the main technical advantage that 
Microsoft weilds as a monopoly; that many of the Windows APIs and 
Office applications file formats are hidden, undocumented, or 
changed at will. This leaves consumers locked into Microsoft's 
control because their applications cannot be run in a competing 
environment, and their information cannot be accessed with competing 
applications. But the fine print makes it clear that Microsoft could 
pretty much continue with business as usual. No requirement is given 
for complete disclosure of the Windows APIs and Office file formats. 
If Microsoft is given the means to withhold portions of these 
interfaces from competition, then it's monopoly position remains 
unaltered.
    A more effective remedy would be one that required Microsoft to 
standardize and publicize the entire set of Windows APIs and the 
file formats of its Office applications with the express goal of 
allowing competitors to build Windows software applications, and 
operating systems, that compete with Microsoft on a level field. 
This should be a public disclosure and not limited to a few 
Microsoft selected developers. It needs to include all developers so 
that true competition may be revived.
    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 like computer vendor Compaq, for example. The Department of 
Justice is used to working in this kind of economic world, and has 
attempted to craft 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 competition on the operating 
system front comes from Linux--a non-commercial 
product--and it faces increasing competition 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 supports a significant portion of the World-Wide-Web, 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. 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, ...''
    The settlement gives Microsoft the right to select it's 
competition and effectively kill other products, like Open Source 
projects that use Microsoft calls.
    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.
    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. Clearly the disclosure of APIs and file formats must 
be public and available to the entire software industry. Such a plan 
would require careful oversight and enforcement, since Microsoft 
could easily engage in all manner of foot-dragging. If Microsoft set 
out to be uncooperative, it could release the API information 
slowly, in deliberately confusing ways, or assiduously following the 
letter of the court's order while flagrantly violating its spirit.
    (There's precedent here: This is precisely how Microsoft behaved 
during the trial when it told the court that it would supply a 
version of Windows with Internet Explorer removed from its guts, but 
gee, sorry, then Windows wouldn't work.)
    Remember that Microsoft is in court as a repeat offender; the 
current antitrust suit, in which a federal district court and an 
appeals court have both affirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly and 
that it has abused its monopoly powers, arose out of the failure of 
a previous consent-decree settlement of an earlier antitrust case. 
At some point, having repeatedly violated the law, Microsoft needs 
to pay a price, or it will continue with its profitably 
anticompetitive ways.
    There's no reason to think the Justice Department's proposed 
settlement will work any better than the consent decree of last 
decade did. And financial penalties can hardly wound a company that 
has a cash reserve of billions of dollars. But intellectual 
property--that's something Bill Gates and his team really care 
about. Requiring them to divulge some of it in order to restore

[[Page 27585]]

competition in the software market might actually get them to change 
the way they operate.
    With Microsoft's APIs and file formats fully standardized, 
documented and published, other software vendors could compete 
fairly--which, after all, is what antitrust laws are supposed 
to promote. We might then be faced with a welcome but long 
unfamiliar sight: a healthy software market, driven, as today's 
hardware market is, by genuine competition.
    Portions of this proposal contain text authored by columnists 
Scott Rosenberg and Robert X. Cringely.
    Regards,
    Robert N. Brauer



MTC-00025104

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I would like to express my complete support for the settlement 
reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft in the 
recent anti-trust trial. The settlement addresses all significant 
issues raised during the trial while at the same time avoiding 
excessive regulatory measures. I believe that the terms of the 
settlement will give the parties who opposed Microsoft during the 
trial important new rights and abilities which will significantly 
enhance their competitive position. At the same time, the settlement 
preserves the right for Microsoft to continue to enhance its product 
based on customer feedback, which has been the fundamental reason 
for its enormous success.
    My sincere congratulations go to both Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice for their continued commitment to come to a 
settlement that benefits American consumers and business.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Sax
    President,
    Sax Software Corp.
    Eugene, Oregon
    541) 344-2235
    2852 Willamette St. #359
    Eugene OR 97405
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025106

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Paul H. Parry. I am the Chief Technology Officer of 
Rocketworks LLC, an Internet integration firm with experience with 
web server platforms from companies including Microsoft, IBM, Sun, 
and AOL(Netscape). I am writing to SUPPORT the proposed settlement 
as the best and fastest way to restore competition to the affected 
markets, preserve existing competition in related markets, and 
quickly stabilize to the technology economy at a time when stability 
is badly needed.
    As has been shown in recent analyses (http://www.actonline.org/ 
press--room/ releases/ACTNov5.pdf), this settlement addresses 
every concern and infraction upheld by the Courtof Appeals, and 
provides many additional consumer benefits that are not required by 
the court's ruling.
    The previous, overturned, ruling would have affected other 
markets, including web server platforms, handheld device operating 
systems, web content and e-commerce activities, that were not 
affected by Microsoft's behavior. All of these are thriving, 
competivive markets in which Microsoft is one of several innovative 
players. This settlement preserves that competition.
    As many have said, Antitrust laws exist to protect consumers, 
not competitors. This settlement protects consumers more than 
adequately. The overturned order, as well as the newer request of 
the non-settling states, are aimed at providing benefits to 
Microsoft's competitors, without any judgement of whether their 
failings were due to Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior or their 
own lack of innovation. The matter of providing remedies to 
competitors is best left to private actions, such as the one being 
brought this week by AOL.
    Consumers'' views of Microsoft and its competitors are 
clear. In the latest Harris Interactive survey of corporate 
reputations (http://www.harrisinteractive. com/pop-- up/rq/
gold.asp), Microsoft was judged to have the 2nd best reputation 
among the US's 60 most visible corporations. This is up from 9th 
place in 2000 and 15th in 1999. Meanwhile, America Online placed 
50th, down from 39th in 2000 and 26th in 1999. This is just one of 
many indications over the last four years that consumers like 
Microsoft's products, services, and corporate reputation.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Paul H Parry
    Chief Technology Officer
    Rocketworks LLC
    211 Perry Parkway
    Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025107

From: Gruber, Brad
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The first resolution of splitting Micro$oft, was by far the best 
and should have been executed. The only people who didn't want that 
to happen is Micro$oft and their preferred partners.
    I blame the current technology recession on Micro$oft. Sure! 
They scared every computerized company on the planet into upgrading 
their systems because of Y2K, draining their budgets, forcing them 
to spend money they didn't even have. Well guess what... who wrote 
the software in the first place that was so susceptible to the year 
2000 bug?
    One topic I have yet to see, is FALSE ADVERTISING! Micro$oft has 
continually lied about how secure their products are. I shouldn't 
have to explain this one to anyone that can read. Lied about how 
much easy it is to use when it is progressively getting more 
difficult. Selling products that don't work as they are advertised 
is simply wrong.
    There are lemon laws for cars, recalls for everything under the 
sun. Why doesn't Micro$oft (and every other software company) have 
to stand by the products they make? If it doesn't work the way it is 
advertised, why are they the only industry that can get away with 
it?
    There is quite a bit of speculation about the DOJ's decision to 
``Wimp out''. There are also quite a few people that have 
formed the conclusion that Micro$oft paid for the DOJ's decision and 
now some of you have summer homes, fancy cars, and trust funds for 
your kids that you never had before.
    Do your job and protect us!
    If you don't... who will?



MTC-00025108

From: Derick Siddoway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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.
    My comment on the Proposed Final Judgement is simple. Microsoft 
has been found guilty in a court of law of not only being a monopoly 
but of improperly using its position as a monopoly to harm 
consumers. Any settlement must therefore address this simple 
statement of fact.
    The Proposed Final Judgement does many things, but what it does 
most effectively is present the appearance of doing something. It 
may or may not be appropriate to punish Microsoft for past misdeeds, 
but it is certainly relevant and appropriate to prevent Microsoft 
from future misdeeds.
    The Proposed Final Judgement does none of that. I should 
probably go further into specifics on this, but others have already 
done so and have done so much better than I can. Please direct your 
attention to the comments on this URL: //http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html
    Sincerely,
    Derick Siddoway, Salt Lake City, Utah
    Derick Siddoway II. Impact Non-privileged primitive users can 
[email protected] cause the total destruction of your 
entire invasion fleet and gain unauthorized access to files.
    --CERT Advisory CA-96.13



MTC-00025109

From: parx@theshearers. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, Parx Shearer, believe that Microsoft's actions have been a 
disgrace to the computing industry and worthy of harsh retribution. 
Microsoft unashamedly sought to bring down competitors in any manner 
possible, legal or otherwise. Now Microsoft believes that it can not 
only get away with this behavior, but continue this behavior in the 
future. I find this unacceptable and send this comment to you in 
hopes that justice will be served against Microsoft so that all 
software vendors may have equal opportunity to offer their products 
for the betterment of the American society.
    Thank you, Parx Shearer

[[Page 27586]]



MTC-00025110

From: John S. Hartley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    CC:MSFIN@Microsoft. 
com@inetgw,[email protected]...



MTC-00025110 0001

??
    Dear DO J,
    As I have said and believe with all my heart many times; you 
people can and do screw up more things than you can possible 
correct. Enron is something you should focus on. Leave people alone, 
Microsoft does more good that we benefit from directly as consumers 
than any other company, when it comes to computers. I dislike the 
government enough without you people messing around with my computer 
and software at home. Ask yourself, what could you tell me that 
might possibly change my mind? 9-11 ? Not hardly! I have since 
9-11, come to feel that this government is solely responsible 
for what happen to us. Now we have given up some more freedom for 
security. We are a nation of sheep!
    Our leadership have been greedy, corrupt, self-serving, too 
ambitious and many more weaknesses. Sin really can kill! I start at 
Kennedy (and lets not forget Clit-tongue), (even Westmoreland and 
Johnson should have been put on trial as war criminals) because that 
is when I started looking and experiencing the world. I was stupid 
and young, wanting to do as Kennedy suggested, ``Ask not what 
your government can do for you but what you can do for your 
country''. Idealistic and stupid! The government use to belong 
to the common American, now it is the hands of... The little guys 
like me sit out here in the real world, dealing with your realities 
created by weeping hearts. I have to live your screw-ups and watch 
the true values of America being flushed down our commodes. How 
unintelligent our country's leaders have become, not to mention the 
people that constitute it (me to). I served my country for 10 years 
and put my life on the line. Now as I look back, I would not do 
that, I am older and wiser. Would you like to tell me to my face 
that I am not patriotic? I don't think so, not to my face anyway. I 
realize you are only a department of this government and I can't 
expect you to do much more than what you are doing. Individuals that 
make up our government are fine people, still I wonder how many are 
too ambitious and self-righteous. Would I welcome any of you into my 
home? I seriously doubt it with all my heart, just as I know in my 
heart that our leaders are responsible for letting 9-11 
happen. Sorry I have no faith in our government and most of the 
people in it. Still, I was born and reared in the hills of Virginia. 
The most I can do is to teach my children that, ``this country 
is only as great as its people and they with many more generations 
have much to do to make it great again''. Because we the people 
have let stupid leaders both democrat and republican take us astray 
from the true values. God's values! And yes I write my government 
representatives and they are in the same boat with you. We don't 
have the America I grew up and fought for. It was great then but not 
now. How's that for a prelude to a hate crime?
    God Bless America, George Bush
    And John Ashcroft
    John Hartley
    1154 Londonberry Lane
    Glen Ellyn, Illinois
    ([email protected])
    MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
Click Here
    

MTC-00025110--0002
    01/29/2002 3:50 P



MTC-00025111

From: Rick Lazansky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to voice my objection to the proposed settlement for 
Microsoft.
    I've been involved in the development of software for 25 years, 
starting with the software development for operating systems and 
software tools with Intel Corporation. Over this period, it has 
become virtually impossible to develop independent software. Most 
alarmingly the nature of the difficulty has grown exponentially over 
the past decade.
    Competitive software requires modular, independent software 
application interfaces, open standards, and the free exchange of 
ideas, techniques, and algorithms. The availability of this 
information has decreased abruptly in each area in which Microsoft 
has launch an initiative. Even where Microsoft has participated in 
an open standard, subsequent events have either a) revealed that 
their real resources were directed to a proprietary standard, b) 
that their actual participation in the standard development served 
to delay the standard in practice, c) they hid or blocked progress 
towards resolving critical areas or d) that they later sought to 
``make proprietary'' later versions of the standard. 
Computer users deserve a choice of solutions, whether general 
software for the consumer, or specific tools for business, 
engineers, or even software development. Microsoft has increasingly 
kept this from occurring. The subtlety by which it is possible to 
preclude effective outside development frightens me. It has become 
less obvious to even long term practioners perhaps, but using 
internet interfaces, Java, and even the C programming language has 
become nearly impossible without incurring delay as well as 
proprietary platform dependence.
    Regards,
    Rick Lazansky
    Rick Lazansky
    VP Product Development
    408 987 0603 x314
    http://www.xpedion.com
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00025112

From: Ron Bolin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Business Practices and Preception
RE: Microsoft vs. 9 States
    Hi,
    Just my 2 cents.
    I truly think that Microsoft has excellent products. However, I 
also believe that they will bury anyone who gets in their way. 
Something akin to ``it's my way or the highway''. I'd like 
to see a binding ruling that makes them more co-operative with 
others. I guess some of that power comes with their wealth. I don't 
envy anyone that has to make the ruling. Good luck and do you best 
job.
    Ron



MTC-00025113

From: Jason Thomas
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please consider the attached comments authored by C. Boyden 
Gray, Chairman of Citizens for a Sound Economy and partner at 
Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering.
    Jason M. Thomas
    Citizens for a Sound Economy
    1250 H Street NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005-3908
    phone: (202)942-7621, fax: (202) 783-4687
    www.cse.org
    Citizens for a Sound Economy...organized Americans committed to 
preserving our economic freedoms.
    CC: Erick R. Gustafson,Paul Hilliar



MTC-00025113--0001

January 23, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I write to endorse resolutely the proposed settlement between 
Microsoft Corporation and the United States Department of Justice. 
The consent decree agreed to in U.S.v. Microsoft enjoins all 
Microsoft actions that were found to be illegal and imposes severe 
restrictions on the company and its business practices. The decree 
is the most forceful and the most regulatory ever negotiated by the 
U.S. Justice Department, wherein Microsoft agreed to provisions that 
were substantially more punitive than what plaintiffs could have 
expected to achieve through litigation. For instance:
    The company is prohibited from exclusive dealing arrangements or 
any preferential treatment from manufacturers, access providers, 
suppliers and vendors. Manufacturers will retain greater freedom to 
display non-Microsoft software, and will no longer face the risk of 
retaliation from Microsoft should they choose to promote products 
made by Microsoft competitors. Should Microsoft fail to abide by any 
of these restrictions, a committee of experts is to be created that 
will receive all complaints pertaining to Microsoft's business 
practices.
    The consent decree runs for five years, with an additional two 
years if Microsoft is found to be in violation of any of its 
terms--a lengthy period of time in any industry; more so in an 
industry as volatile and dynamic as computer software.
    Despite all of this, opponents of the decree--which 
include, not surprisingly,

[[Page 27587]]

many of Microsoft's industry rivals and their 
supporters--continue to belabor two points: First, that the 
Court of Appeals decision that led to this settlement upheld the 
core argument of the government's case, that Microsoft held a 
monopoly in operating systems; and second, that the settlement 
between the company and the government is not only inadequate but 
unenforceable.
    First of all, yes, the Court of Appeals did find Microsoft's 
exclusive dealings to be monopolistic, which is exactly and 
specifically what the company has been prohibited from doing in the 
future, according to the terms of the decree. The current District 
Court judge in the case even made the point that ``the scope of 
any proposed remedy must be carefully crafted so as to ensure that 
the enjoining conduct falls within the [penumbra] of behavior which 
was found to be anticompetitive.'' (transcript of Scheduling 
Conference before the Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, September 
28, 2001, at 8.) It would seem that specifically prohibiting the 
company from engaging in the activities that were found to be 
monopolistic would meet this criterion.



MTC-00025113--0002

    As for enforceability, included in the unprecedented provisions 
of the decree is the creation of an independent three-person 
technical committee to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the 
agreement. The committee will reside at Microsoft headquarters and 
that will have complete access to all Microsoft facilities, records, 
employees and proprietary technical data. This includes the source 
code for Windows, which some have pointed out is the equivalent of 
having access to the ``secret formula'' for Coca Cola.
    In addition to the Technical Committee, the Department of 
Justice and each of the nine states that have so far settled with 
the company, will all have the power to monitor Microsoft's 
compliance and to seek remedy if the company fails to meet the terms 
of the decree. Microsoft has also agreed to create and implement an 
internal compliance program to educate their managers and employees 
about the different restrictions and obligations the decree imposes 
on them. All of this goes far beyond what the Court of Appeals 
originally required.
    It seems none of this is good enough for those who are 
determined to pursue this case until the bitter end--an end 
that could mean bitter consequences for this nation's high-tech 
industry, not to mention the economy as a whole. The claims that 
survived the Court of Appeals decision were, and remain, very 
narrow. The idea of splitting the company apart had been dismissed. 
The company's ``tying'' practices were found to be legal. 
All that was left were proposed measures such as forcing Microsoft 
to sell Windows software without including its Web browser, instant 
messaging or media player applications--an indication of just 
how trivial this case has become in terms of ``harm to 
consumers'' when measures such as these become the bargaining 
chips.
    One Microsoft opponent has said that you assume consumer harm 
results from monopolization. But it is difficult to see how 
consumers might benefit from having the Media Player or Instant 
Messaging applications deleted from their software. Microsoft did in 
fact offer a browserless version of Windows at one point during 
litigation. Nobody wanted it.
    It is important to remember that decrees in civil antitrust 
cases like this are designed to remedy, not to punish. Microsoft was 
found to be engaged in illegal business practices, it has been 
prohibited from those practices in the future, and faces severe 
repercussions should it fail to meet these prohibitions. And yet, 
opponents continue to complain that the decree is useless because it 
will have no ``material'' impact on Microsoft's business.
    Microsoft's opponents like to say there are loopholes in the 
loopholes, and speak forebodingly of the years of additional 
litigation that will result. The irony here is that they are the 
ones refusing to settle the case, they are the ones prolonging the 
litigation, and they are the ones finding fault with enforcement 
provisions that are unprecedented in a conduct decree such as this.



MTC-00025113--0003

    The Department of Justice, which represents the public and is 
the principal interpreter of the federal antitrust laws to the 
Judiciary, has achieved a powerful settlement and wants to move on. 
There are a few attorneys general with questionable expertise who 
want to prolong the uncertainty clouding the marketplace. They 
should recede from the federal action, and let the private sector 
litigants get back to creating jobs instead of enriching lawyers.
    If this case is truly about protecting consumers from illegal 
and monopolistic business practices, then that has been accomplished 
in a reasonable, enforceable and unprecedented manner through the 
consent decree negotiated between Microsoft and the Justice 
Department and supported by nine States. If, on the other hand, this 
case has turned into an opportunity to prolong litigation and wring 
additional dollars out of Microsoft, it is in the best interest of 
the public, the economy, and indeed the judiciary to bring this case 
to an end as precipitously as is possible.
    Sincerely,
    C. Boyden Gray



MTC-00025113--0004



MTC-00025114

From: arthurguay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please recognize three key facts:
    1.) Those who are suing Microsoft are second-best companies who 
can not compete with Microsoft on the quality of software needed by 
the masses.
    2.) I have never met an individual who has said he/she were not 
satisfied with Microsoft's software. People are NOT saying they have 
been cheated and or overcharged.
    3.) These people, who are purported to have been cheated and or 
overcharged, do NOT exist. These people are imaginary people who 
have been created by the second-best software companies.



MTC-00025115

From: Storm North
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Reader:
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the 
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust 
case. The following is just one instance why I think the proposed is 
problematic. Microsoft created intentional incompatibilities in 
Windows 3.1 to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating systems 
An episode from the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit 
illustrates how Microsoft has used technical means 
anticompetitively. Microsoft's original operating system was called 
M-DOS. Programs used the DOS API to call up the services of 
the operating system. Digital Research offered a competing operating 
system, DR-DOS, that also implemented the DOS API, and could 
run programs written for MS-DOS. Windows 3.1 and earlier were 
not operating systems per se, but rather middleware that used the 
DOS API to interoperate with the operating system. Microsoft was 
concerned with the competitive threat posed by DR-DOS, and added 
code to beta copies of Windows 3.1 so it would display spurious and 
misleading error messages when run on DR-DOS. Digital Research's 
successor company, Caldera, brought a private antitrust suit against 
Microsoft in 1996.
    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,
    Storm North
    Plover, Wi. 54467
    715.345.2806



MTC-00025116

From: Izzy Blacklock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't know how much weight my words will have seeing as I'm a 
Canadian citizen, but I've decided to write anyway. If for nothing 
else, to show that Microsoft's influence and behavior in the 
industry is far reaching, effecting people around the world, not 
just in the US. I've been following this case with great interest 
since the beginning. There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft has 
a monopoly and has used its influence to maintain it's strangle hold 
on the industry and to leverage it's interests in other areas. This 
case has clearly shown that Microsoft's behaviour is illegal under 
your laws and that punitive action is necessary to restore balance 
to the industry. I've read significant criticism of the proposed 
settlement from several industry leaders as well as legal experts 
and the general consensus seems to be that this settlement will do 
little to stop Microsoft from continuing it's Monopolistic 
behaviour. This is of great concern to me, as it should be to 
everyone. Microsoft has shown time and time again that they will 
take advantage of any loopholes it can, and this settlement seems to 
be filled with them!
    I urge you to seriously consider all the opposition to this 
settlement when making

[[Page 27588]]

your decision. The monopolistic behaviour of Microsoft has done more 
harm then good to the industry in the past. Giving them a simple 
slap on the wrist now will encourage them to continue this 
behaviour.
    ...Izzy



MTC-00025117

From: Tony Cizerle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The heck with everyone worried about losing their ``comfort 
zone'' that Microshaft HAS illegally woven then into--so 
they therefor don't want the beast bothered--MicroShaft broke 
(breaks) the law and NOTHING is done to them.
    C'mon--All computers should be able to be PURCHASED WITHOUT 
any company's software on them--We should not be FORCED by 
MicroShaft and the DOJ to continue putting up with this illegal 
garbage...
    Dell and all the other mfgrs were BLACKMAILED by MS!!!
    Tony Cizerle
    http://www.computerbay.com
    [email protected] 
    Phone: 602-265-1529 
    Fax: 602.532.7286



MTC-00025118

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Antitrust Division,
    I am writing to contribute my comments to the public comments 
being accepted regarding hte Microsoft Antitrust matter. It appears 
as if Microsoft is barely being punished for its monopolistic 
practices. I recommend stiffer penalities including the decoupling 
of products from their operating system. Is the Internet browser 
necessarily an integral part of the operating system? Is MSN part of 
their operating system? Is Windows Media Player part of their 
operating system? Should Microsoft be allowed to continue bundling 
these products with their OS to the exclusion of competing products?
    This bundling creates a barrier to other software developers. If 
there is something that comes in Windows on your computer and is 
presented to you, you will be apt to click the defaults and end up 
using Microsoft products and subscribing to Microsoft services. This 
all happens without people knowing there are choices. My father in 
law and grandmother are not computer experts. They can be hearded 
around dialog boxes and windows to fulfill Microsoft business plans.
    Creating an environment for competitive products to have a 
chance would help individual developers and small startups achieve 
economic success. Thanks you for the opportunity to comment.
    Mike Aaron



MTC-00025119

From: Frank Devlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a very satisfied user of Microsoft products for many years I 
believe that the Justice Department suit against the firm was 
misguided at best. I don't believe the firm has done any wrong to 
consumers. Consequently, no DOJ actions should be taken against the 
firm.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Choltco-Devlin
    7175 Horton Road
    Hamilton, NY 13346



MTC-00025120

From: Jeremiah C.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly support the government in the anti-trust trial. 
Companies in the past were broken and yet Microsoft wants to get 
away with a mere billion dollars. Hit Microsoft hard where it really 
counts: in the bank. Force Microsoft to pay 50 billion dollars 
(their quarterly revenue) over a year for schools to buy any 
technologies and forbid any agreements between Microsoft and PC 
manufacturers to bundle an OS with a computer. I scoff at any 
settlement that will not change Microsoft deposition towards 
consumers and competition.
    Warm regards,
    Jeremiah Cohick



MTC-00025121

From: JEROME TEEVENS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There is not much more to add except that it would truely be sad 
if Microsoft were allowed to continue the practices that limit 
consumer's choices. The settlement seems to do very little to 
improve the situation.
    PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
    http://www.peoplepc.com



MTC-00025122

From: Chad Redman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00025122--0001

    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to add my voice to those who are against the 
lenient terms of this settlement. For a reasonable non-sociopathic 
business, one would expect that once they had agreed to the terms, 
they would follow its intent. But it is clear from past behavior 
that Microsoft will find any feasible loophole, and barring that, 
will violate the terms outright. It has shown this not only by 
**violating a previous consent decree**, but by bundling even more 
software with its latest operating system, and rushing it out to 
vendors before the DoJ could restrain it. Most of the specific 
arguments against the proposal have been expressed more elegantly by 
Dan Kegel (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html). Although the 
potential loopholes I point out below may sound absurd, Microsoft 
has demonstrated that it does not shy from ``creative'' 
legal interpretations.
    From: III. Prohibited Conduct
    (sec. A)
    ...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 
....
    Nothing requires that Microsoft's reason be valid. A trumped up 
complaint could be issued, possibly one which the OEM cannot comply 
with. After 30 days, the OEM is not licensed. (sec. D)
    ...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...
    The groups listed are a subset of all possible users. Can MS 
exclude anyone from joining MSDN? And what is the cost of joining. 
For programmers creating cost-free software, is the subscription 
price prohibitive? Is someone with access constrained from sharing 
it with others who are not members? Are users constrained in any way 
in the use of the APIs, such as in creating software under the Free 
Software Foundations GPL, or in an open source project, such as 
Linux or Wine, both MS competitors.
    ... 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. Meanwhile, all MS project teams can access 
the APIs at any time earlier than this, which it can use to get 
ahead of competing products. This is why the term ``Chinese 
wall'' gets invoked a lot, and why the proposed remedy was to 
split the company into OS and software companies. (III.J.2)
    c. meets reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business Microsoft may argue that cost-free or open source software 
creators are not viable businesses. In fact, they have publicly 
stated as much already. IV.B.3
    Within 7 days of entry of this Final Judgment, 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. I don't know 
why MS needs to be involved in this. The TC members are to assist 
the plaintiffs in the enforcement that the judgment grants them. The 
Plaintiffs should be able to choose whomever they feel would do the 
best job at assisting them, hostile to MS or not, as long as their 
oversight does not violate privacy protections this document grants 
to MS. How would an MS-chosen TC be helpful to the Plaintiffs? (v)
    1. Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment 
will expire on the fifth anniversary of the date it is entered by 
the Court. 5 years is not enough.
    2. 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

[[Page 27589]]

Judgment of up to two years, together with such other relief as the 
Court may deem appropriate 7 years is not enough. (VI)
    B. ``Communications Protocol'' means the set of rules 
for information exchange to accomplish predefined tasks between a 
Windows Operating System Product and a server operating system 
product connected via a network, including, but not limited to, a 
local area network, a wide area network or the Internet. These rules 
govern the format, semantics, timing, sequencing, and error control 
of messages exchanged over a network. It should also include MS 
server products; i.e., tasks between a Microsoft Product and a 
*client* operating system product. This would include the 
hypothetical case where an MS online service ``embraces and 
extends'' existing internet protocols. Really, this definition 
should just define it as information exchange between two machines 
or applications, independent of where the machines are or whose OS 
is on them.
    I. ``ISV'' means an entity other than Microsoft that 
is engaged in the development or marketing of software products. I 
presume the V in ISV stands for vendor. If someone creates a product 
that he gives away for free instead of sell, is he still an ISV J. 
``Microsoft Middleware'' means software code that ... 2. 
is Trademarked;
    Software code may be copyrighted, not trademarked. I would think 
this means software product, not code. Oddly, definition (K) does 
defines ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' separately, but 
as a rather narrow set of products. P. ``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, and (iii) supplies a 
user interface that enables users to access functionality of the 
operating system and in which they can run applications.
    Does this mean that MS does not consider a web browser, MSN 
services, links to MS's preferred online photo developers, or 
Minesweeper part of the operating system? Q. ``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.



MTC-00025122-0003

    It is significant that this does not cover server computers such 
as web servers, and excludes handheld computers or PDAs. And what's 
the difference between these last two? R. ``Timely 
Manner'' means at the time Microsoft first releases a beta test 
version of a Windows Operating System Product that is distributed to 
150,000 or more beta testers.
    Why is it important that MS be allowed to withhold information 
until that point? Surely, anyone can benefit from the information, 
even if it is subject to change.
    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 acts this judgment remedies were taken by Microsoft the 
Corporation. Therefore, all MS products should be covered, not just 
this very limited group. In addition to the above specific 
criticisms, I would like to see protections for freely available 
operating systems (e.g., Linux) and open source software at least 
mentioned in the judgment. MS has targeted Linux and open source 
software as its current primary threats, and will use any tactic 
within its disposable to extinguish these competitors. For example, 
a new MS practice is to construct licenses (whether or not for a 
product covered by the judgment) that specify that the user cannot 
use a product to create ``viral'' software, which is 
specifically targeted at open source software covered by the Free 
Software Foundation's GPL (MS does or did have such a license for 
one of its handheld product developer kits).
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Chad Redman [email protected]
    ITS/Admin. Sys., Yale University
    00025122--0004



MTC-00025124

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please approve the proposed settlement so this entire issue is 
put to rest. While no settlement is perfect, this one seems to be 
quite fair. I think Microsoft should be left alone to produce world 
class software and that their competitors should do the same instead 
of dragging this whole thing out.
    I think it is in the public interest to approve this settlement 
so we can all move ahead without further tax dollars spent on this 
case.
    Eric Busby
    Foothill Ranch, CA
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025125

From: Michael Detlefsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea. 
Microsoft has shown by their behavior over a number of years that 
they will ignore any government orders that they do not want to 
obey.
    I was appalled when I read that Microsoft said they wouldn't 
agree to proposed remedies. This is just another example or the 
continuing arrogance of the top people of the company. Defendants 
don't have to agree with remedies ordered by a court, they just have 
to follow them. Or it was this way last time I checked. If I were in 
court, I certainly wouldn't get to pick and choose my punishment, 
why should they?
    If they are not handed a remedy that will change their behavior, 
then they will finally know for certain that they can get away with 
anything. They should be punished for not only their current 
behavior, but for not following previous remedies.
    It's not very hard to see that their behavior has resulted in 
severely restricted choices in available software packages over the 
last ten years. It's hard to see how this situation is of any 
benefit to consumers.
    Mike Detlefsen



MTC-00025126

From: Mike Prettyman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    Where to begin? There are so many pages of documentation 
regarding this case I honestly have only had time to briefly glance 
over some of it since I have work to do. However, given the 
information that I have obtained, and based on my own experience in 
multiple areas of the computer industry over the past years (I was a 
tech for a small OEM for a few years, then I went on to work for a 
prominent ISP,Earthlink , as a technician, and currently I am 
working for a midrange/mainframe broker) I certainly feel that 
Microsoft is clearly getting the short end of the stick so to speak.
    I have no affiliation with Microsoft, nor am I receiving 
compensation of any sort for voicing my opinion in their favor. What 
other product on the market is so open that the vast majority of 
competitors products will function on said product(s). Can you walk 
into a Ford dealer and ask for a Chevy motor in your new ranger 
pickup truck? Ok, how about all the onboard computers that control 
features such as fuel injection systems, traction control, etc? If 
you believe that Honda has superior electronics can you ask for them 
in your Dodge? I think you'd get laughed out of the dealership plain 
and simple.
    Now lets take a look at other computer products on the market as 
a comparison shall we? If I purchase an SGI and want to run down to 
Best Buy to purchase the latest accounting software to do my taxes 
will it run on my machine? No. Ok how about if I go get a new video 
card and more RAM, will it just drop right in and will I be up and 
running in minutes? No. I would be forced into buying proprietary 
applications AND hardware if I wanted to add more functionality to 
my base machine... But I really like the IRIX operating system, wont 
it run on my PC? No. The same can be said about Sun Microsystems, 
IBM, and even Macintosh (apple) to an extent. All of the 
aforementioned systems are closed, proprietary systems that offer an 
enduser little flexibility and very little in the way of an upgrade 
path. I don see anyone screaming foul where the other company's are 
concerned.

[[Page 27590]]

    Now an ``industry standard'' has been established. 
Obviously the bar has been set in terms of performance, flexibility, 
and a user friendly interface. Is it Microsoft's fault that no other 
company has even come close to creating a product that can compete 
on even ground? Do they owe a competitor anything? Should they be 
forced to fully reveal their API so that other's can steal it, and 
tap into their bread and butter product? I personally, as well as 
many of my associates, would answer a resounding NO! That's like 
forcing coke to disclose what their secret formula is and to go a 
step further, include a can of Pepsi in every six-pack in the name 
of ``what's good for the consumer''. Please let products 
stand on their merit instead of trying to make everyone ``play 
nice and friendly''. The world of big business isn't for the 
weak, and if a company cannot stand the heat, they should look to 
get out of software development since its a very cut throat 
industry.
    Surely you will get many email's from people with something at 
stake (IE: Financial gain if they can force their way into the 
market by riding Microsofts coat tails into an industry instead of 
innovating new ``must have'' products) but you must see 
them for what they truly are.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Prettyman



MTC-00025127

From: Les Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I do not agree with the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
case. The company has exceeded every limit of decency, pushed 
legalities to the edge, expressed contempt for the prior settlement 
against them, and continues in its monopolistic and exploitative 
ways. It expresses the worst of commerce and the ways in which it 
operates are most definitely not in the interest of consumers.



MTC-00025128

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Pete Vieites and I am an avid consumer of somputer 
software from various companies. I agree with the settlement actions 
and feel it's in the publics best interest. It's time for all 
companies involved to move on and concentrate their efforts on 
building better products that we demand. For the record, Microsoft's 
products, have never harmed the consumer. However, this ongoing 
bickering between Microsoft, the states (as well as the competitors 
companies they represent) and the Justice department are doing more 
harm than good.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025131

From: CMS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the current proposed settlement is a very bad idea. It 
will only reinforce Microsoft's monopoly in the long term. This will 
only make it more difficult for competition to exist and it will 
leave the country and the world in a worse position than it is now 
with regard to Microsoft.
    It is my hope that the settlement will be reevaluated and 
changed into something that solves the monopoly problem, instead of 
being something that essentially ignores the issue.
    Thank you,
    CS



MTC-00025132

From: Sandy W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sandra Walker
229 Lee Street Rock Hill, SC 29730
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The reason for this correspondence is to express my support of 
the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust case and to state 
I believe you should do likewise. For far too long Microsoft has 
been coerced into court, spending millions that it could be using to 
build better products and create jobs.
    The settlement reached will give computer makers broad new 
abilities to offer non-Microsoft products, either as separate 
operating systems or as components on Microsoft operating systems. 
This settlement will actually give competitors new advantages 
against Microsoft. Unbelievably, competitors still are condemning 
this settlement because they want something that is much more 
detrimental and unfair for Microsoft.
    I strongly urge you to support the settlement that is available 
in this case and to repel those interests that want to derail it.
    Sincerely,
    Sandra Walker



MTC-00025133

From: Paul Mugar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:44pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement Letter ----Original 
Message -----
From: Paul Mugar
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:17 PM
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 2 Inez Street Camarillo, CA 93012
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I understand the Courts will make a final decision at the end of 
this month on whether the proposed Microsoft settlement will benefit 
the public. I believe it's fine as long as Microsoft is left 
standing, when it's all said and done. If the nine states are 
allowed to overturn the agreement and move ahead with additional 
litigation, it could take another three years and billions in legal 
expenses all incurred by the consumers and the taxpayers. How is 
that a benefit?
    Microsoft has agreed to not enter into any agreements obligating 
any third party to distribute or promote any Windows technology 
exclusively or in a fixed percentage, subject to certain narrow 
exceptions where no competitive concern is present. The Company has 
also agreed not to enter into agreements relating to Windows that 
obligate any software developer to refrain from developing or 
promoting software that competes with Windows. From this one could 
see that Microsoft is more than willing to cooperate in order to 
resolve this issue. I urge you to end this now. No more action 
should be taken at the Federal level.
    Sincerely,
    H. Mugar
    cc: Representative Elton Gallegly
    CC:Gallegly Elton



MTC-00025134

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    Any settlement with Microsoft, short of breaking the corporation 
into smaller business units, is a mistake. As much as Bill Gates 
would like to contend that Microsoft has advanced personal 
computing, his company has done immeasurable damage to the PC 
industry. Microsoft has stifled innovation with its practice of 
buying the competition. For years, if Microsoft could not 
successfully compete with a company, they bought the company and 
shut it down. This practice is easily demonstrated by Microsoft's 
inferior implementation of data compression and memory management. 
Microsoft first incorporated data compression into its Windows 
operating system, which put Stacker Electronics out of business. 
Microsoft offered its version of disk compression for free. The 
Quarterdeck Company had superior memory management utilities (QEMM) 
and multi-tasking software. Microsoft incorporated inferior memory 
management capabilities into its OS which led to the downfall of 
Quarterdeck and forever stifled further innovations in each of these 
areas. In the same way, Microsoft has unfairly crippled Netscape by 
incorporating its inferior web browser into its OS. Giving away an 
inferior product that will get a user by is a sure way to stifle 
further innovation. Stifling innovation at the expense of limiting 
competition is wrong.
    Unfortunately, with the current state of computing, most users 
will never know what innovations and advancements would have been 
possible had Microsoft not had a free hand to kill the competition 
with the power of its monopoly. It is for this very reason that 
monopolies are illegal.
    The government should not give in to Microsoft and Microsoft 
should be forced to pay for the damage that has been done to the PC 
industry.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Varsel



MTC-00025135

From: Frances Burmeister
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:46pm

[[Page 27591]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am absolutely convinced that the settlement recently arrived 
at between the Microsoft, DOJ, and nine states is more than 
sufficiently harsh to cover any improper competetive practices they 
may have used.
    It is also critical to consider the enormous good that Microsoft 
has achieved for not only millions of consumers but also thousands 
and thousands of business. Microsoft provides top quality 
applications which have provided benefit to many many users over the 
years. In addition, by providing a solid, widely accepted 
development environment, it has made it possible for thousands of 
small businesses to grow, flourish, and prosper.
    I work for one such company and am far more concerned about the 
serious damage to our business and those thousands of others if 
Microsoft is restrained from innovating or is so harshly punished 
that they cannot afford to continue their top quality development 
efforts.
    Frances A. Burmeister
    1120 East Madison
    Fairfield, Iowa
    52556



MTC-00025136

From: G. Del Merritt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata B. Hesse or To Whom It May Concern--
    I offer the following comments on the ``Stipulation and 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment (11/06/2001)'': http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm
    Specifically:
    --Under the ``Prohibited Conduct'' section, 
III.J, concerning the requirements of when Microsoft can/must 
disclose APIs or Documentation, too much latitude is given to 
Microsoft by both paragraphs 1 and 2. They can ``spin'' or 
re-implement almost any documentation or API such that it could be 
labeled as potentially able to compromise the overall security of 
the system. The explanation of this section in http://www.usdoj.gov/
atr/cases/f9500/9549.htm is of some use here, but I do not feel 
comfortable with the wording of the Final Judgement itself.
    --I fear that section IV.B, ``Appointment of a 
Technical Committee'', is destined to failure. Because of the 
breadth of Microsoft's presence in the software technology sector, 
just about any non-academic who has technical knowledge can be 
considered either a competitor of Microsoft or a likely employee/
contractor of them. This makes item # 2 difficult to resolve.
    --Also in section IV.B, I feel that items 9 and 10 are 
counterproductive to reigning in Microsoft's practices; without 
being able to report to the public further transgressions, there are 
no teeth to the committee. This, I presume, is exactly what 
Microsoft wants.
    --Under section V.B, ``Termination'', I feel that 
should Microsoft be found to willfully engage in a pattern of 
further abuse, the clock should be reset: there should be no 
``one-time extension'' of the remedies. Instead, each 
infraction can set up a brand new 5-year plan for monitoring 
Microsoft; there should be no limit to the number of extensions 
requested.
    Throughout this case, and in general, Microsoft's practices have 
been clearly documented as irresponsible and anti-competitive. There 
are times when you have to make up for the harm you have done to 
others; this is one of those times for Microsoft.
    --Del Merritt
    10 Belknap Point Road
    Damariscotta, ME 04543



MTC-00025137

From: Jason Paul Kazarian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:47pm
Subject: Tunney Act Comment
    Microsoft used its monopoly power in one market, namely that for 
personal computer operating systems, to boost its market share in 
another market, namely personal computer application software. This 
practice is illegal. The finding of fact that the preceeding is true 
was also upheld on appeal.
    The court must break the tie. Microsoft has a right to its 
operating system monopoly but not its application software business: 
Microsoft engaged in an illegal practice to build and nurture that 
business.
    Any remedy that does not include breaking this tie allows 
Microsoft to continue operating in violation of the Sherman Anti-
Trust act. Such a settlement must not be considered. =====
    Jason Paul Kazarian
    Email: [email protected]
    Web: http://leftbrainedgeeks.com/



MTC-00025138

From: John G. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The antitrust suit against Microsoft has not had an adverse 
affect upon my technology-based company as of yet, but if this suit 
were to continue, it would surely affect it. In a worst-case 
scenario, if Microsoft were broken up, I could go out of business, 
even though I am not employed by Microsoft.
    There are probably thousands of businesses like mine that would 
face the same problem. The settlement that was reached between 
Microsoft and Department of Justice promises to prevent any adverse 
effects if litigation is stopped.
    Under the settlement, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate 
against any computer makers if they ship software that would compete 
with its Windows operating system. Microsoft has also agreed to make 
all future versions of Windows to be compatible with non-Microsoft 
products. The settlement also establishes a three-person 
``Technical Committee'' that will monitor Microsoft's 
compliance to it.
    I also do not want to see Microsoft forced to open the code for 
Windows* to the world. I would not want to be forced to buy my 
software from India, Germany, Japan or China. If you think that 
opening the source code to Windows* will help Microsoft's 
competitors, what do you think it will do to those same competitors 
when they have to compete with companies in other countries.
    To continue litigation is to squander all the time and money 
spent formulating this settlement. The government must not waste 
such scarce resources amid recession. I urge you confirm this 
settlement and allow the industry to move ahead.
    Sincerely,
    John G Miller
    President



MTC-00025139

From: Amy Ayer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was disturbed to learn that the proposed settlement does not 
include strong requirements that Microsoft document exactly how its 
operating system works, releasing the information immediately after 
each change, so that other software companies can design software to 
run reliably under Microsoft operating systems.
    As a professional software instructor, I have observed that many 
fine programs such as Adobe Photoshop and the Corel office suite run 
unreliably under Windows, even though Photoshop runs beautifully on 
Macintoshes and the Microsoft office suite displays far fewer 
problems.
    I believe Microsoft has a history of keeping specifications 
secret and writing non-standard code (e.g. the scandal a few months 
ago when they designed www.msn.com to run badly on the Opera 
browser) as a way of forcing people to use their products rather 
than superior products by other companies. This is an abuse of power 
gained by their monopoly on operating systems.
    Please alter the judgement to include
    1) Clear and full documentation of Windows
    2) Clear and full documentation of Microsoft applications, so 
they can be run on other operatings systems.
    Sincerely yours,
    Amelia Ayer
    Norwich, CT MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print 
your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx



MTC-00025140

From: MARK GHALY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.



MTC-00025140 0001

Mark Ghaly
4452 141st Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98006-2310
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 
20530-0001
January 23, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    In ancient Greece, a good Athenian is the one that would leave 
Athens better than he found it. This is precisely why I am writing 
you this letter. Microsoft can only be accused of democratizing the 
personal computer. The operating system Windows has enhanced

[[Page 27592]]

productivity of the PC and made computing available to any one who 
cared to use it with minimal required skills.
    Prior to Windows OS. One was a captive hostage to Apple PC with 
its planned obsolescence, unless one was willing to invest 
innumerable hours to learn DOS. I feel that Windows was a gift to us 
[non-computer literate] and has made computing to the average person 
easy, intuitive and painless. If we did not have Windows probably we 
would have had various competing software with a mass confusion in 
the market.
    I am writing you to urge you and the federal government to 
endorse and implement the proposed settlement plan in the anti-trust 
case against Microsoft.
    The settlement will, I think justly, allow the company to remain 
a single corporate entity. In view of the enormous contributions 
Microsoft has made to the IT industry, this a proper response to 
deeds done and hopefully a harbinger of future good works. Right now 
the industry needs a stimulant badly.
    The government's plan asks a steep price for the company's 
continued existence. Microsoft will have to open itself up to its 
competitors in many ways. Windows will no longer be its sole 
province, nor its marketplace Trojan horse. Windows will now be 
configured so as to not just accept but promote others software. A 
government oversight committee will ensure that the company no 
longer engages in anti-competitive practices.
    In short, I believe that the settlement is a proper workable 
compromise. Please support this plan. I trust and I hope that the 
motto of the classical Athenian would prevail 00025140--0002
    I of 2 01/29/2002 3:59 [
    Sincerely,
    Mark Ghaly
    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://
explorer.msn.com.
    00025140----0003
    01/29/2002 3:59 I



MTC-00025141

From: Joan Baskett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice,
    My husband and I want you to know that, as taxpayers and 
consumers, we strongly support the Microsoft settlement. Please 
approve the settlement today!
    Thank you for your consideration of our views.
    Sincerely,
    Ferol & Joan Baskett
    7338 S.E. Berryton Rd.
    Berryton, KS 66409



MTC-00025142

From: Stephen Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the government has dragged Microsoft through the mud 
long enough. Let America get back to business and start by finishing 
this case with Microsoft.
    Thank you for your consideration. S. Quinn



MTC-00025143

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:47pm
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,
    John Hartley
    1154 Londonberry Lane
    Glrn Ellyn, IL 60137-6110



MTC-00025144

From: Thomas Crook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:51pm
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 accordance with the Tunney act I would like to comment on the 
Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/
9495.htm) in the United States of America vs. Microsoft case. I am 
concerned that so many loopholes are left open in the language of 
the PFJ that it will be largely ineffective for its stated purpose.
    My name is Thomas Crook. I am a US citizen currently living in 
Sydney Australia and working for a small computer software company 
with US, UK and Australian offices. I have been involved in the 
computer industry in some form since the late 1970's and have 
followed the rise of Microsoft almost since its inception. I have 
many years experience working as a software engineer and computer 
scientist. In addition, I have an MBA and studied marketing and 
economics at the doctoral level for several years.
    I have taught university undergraduate and masters classes in 
business and economics faculties at the University of Utah and the 
University of Sydney.
    An Instance of Consumer Harm and a PFJ Loophole
    I start by relating a personal example of a specific harm to 
consumers arising from the Microsoft monopoly: A few years ago my 
University department decided that we wanted to move all our 
computers from Windows 95 and 98 to Windows NT. We also planned to 
buy some new computers.
    Under our University agreement with Microsoft, we purchased 
Windows NT licenses to cover our existing departmental computers. 
The agreement required us to buy licenses in multiples of five and 
we ended up with surplus licenses that we anticipated would be used 
on newly acquired machines. When the time came to purchase the new 
computers, we were disappointed to find that well known vendors such 
as Dell computer would not sell us small quantities of computers 
without Microsoft Windows licenses. We were forced to purchase 
software licenses that we would never use. From published press 
accounts, I subsequently understood that this was required under OEM 
contracts with Microsoft.
    Section III G of the PFJ initially addresses the harm we 
suffered in this instance, but then immediately offers a gaping 
loophole!
    G. Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement with: 1. any 
IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM that grants Consideration on the condition 
that such entity distributes, promotes, uses, or supports, 
exclusively or in a fixed percentage, any Microsoft Platform 
Software, 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
    Based on Microsoft's past actions, I anticipate that this 
loophole will be used to ensure that in practice nothing will change 
and that ordinary consumers will not be able to purchase computers 
without a Microsoft operating system. (Indeed, I just did a quick 
online survey of major mail-order hardware vendors and could find 
none selling a computer without a Microsoft operating system). This 
loophole should be removed. A Second Instance of Consumer Harm not 
Addressed by the PFJ
    Going back to my personal anecdote: the least expensive way we 
could purchase our new computers was to buy them with Windows 98. As 
soon as the new machines arrived, I installed Windows NT on them. We 
never used the Windows 98 license on the new machines. Further 
compounding our injury, I noted that the End User License Agreement 
that came with the Windows 98 prohibited us from using it on a 
different computer than the one we purchased it with. Contrast this 
with the case of computer hardware. If I purchased a new computer 
which came with a modem, and I already had a modem, no one would 
even think of objecting if I used the new modem on a different 
machine or turned around and resold it to someone else. Economic 
theory would argue that such restrictive licensing could only be 
viably exist in a very imperfect market (e.g. a monopolistic one). 
Indeed, at the time, given a choice, I would have gladly purchased a 
functionally-equivalent non-Microsoft product that had no such 
onerous licensing stipulations--had one existed. I note that 
the PFJ does not address the type of consumer harm we suffered in 
this

[[Page 27593]]

instance. Consumers should not be forced to purchase software they 
don't need and should be free to resell software they cannot use.
    Exclusion of Not-For-Profit Organizations from the Terms of the 
PFJ PBS columnist Robert X. Cringely noted that ``not-for-
profit organizations have no rights at all under the proposed 
settlement.'' (See http://www.pbs.org/cringely/ pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html.) This is an egregious failing. Microsoft has 
through means fair and foul managed to eliminate the bulk of its 
for-profit competitors over the years. It has had a harder time 
dealing with not-for-profit entities. This is not for lack of 
trying. In the past two years Microsoft has begun to move against 
the open source movement, as evidenced by its spokespersons using 
perjoritive terms such as ``viral'' when referring to 
certain open source licenses. The PFJ must be altered such that 
these true competitors are not shut out.
    My Agreement with Others'' Comments
    (1) Codeweavers CEO Jeremy P. White (http://www.codeweavers.com/ 
jwhite/tunneywine.html) noted weaknesses in the PFJ that would allow 
Microsoft to undermine the Wine project, an important initiative in 
restoring competition to the personal computer operating system 
market.
    (2) Dan Kegel noted a number of problems with the PFJ in its 
current form (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html) I agree with 
the points he makes.
    It is my strong belief that the PFJ in its current form will be 
largely ineffectual and should not go forward.
    Sincerely
    Thomas Crook
    Engineering Manager



MTC-00025145

From: David Dehghan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case. Don't waste more time and money. 
---------- MSN Photos is the easiest way to 
share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/
worldwide.aspx



MTC-00025146

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement IS in the public interest! I am an AOL subscriber 
(I don't know about much longer) but I use MS Internet Explorer 
consistently & don't like to be told (by AOL or Netscape) that I 
have to use an operating system without Internet Explorer! Richard 
K. Haynes



MTC-00025148

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Christina Greywitt
    1914 Coe's Post Run Westlake, OH 44145-2021



MTC-00025149

From: Kris Klindworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    As a professional in the information technology industry, I must 
respectfully protest the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-
trust case. This is a company that has been convicted of violating 
the anti-trust laws at the very time it was under an anti-trust 
related consent decree. They are a monopoly, they have ignored the 
law, and I absolutely believe that they have purposefully presented 
false and misleading testimony under oath. They will continue to do 
so under this settlement. The difference is that they won't be 
breaking the law any more because this settlement will give them 
permission to do these things.
    I have read many commentaries which explore the huge and 
empowering holes this settlement opens for Microsoft, but I will 
point you to only two that state the case so much better than I 
could. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html http://www.pbs.org/
cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    You will no doubt have received many emails in support of this 
settlement from people who have a financial interest in the success 
of Microsoft. They have no doubt argued that it is in our counties 
best interest to accept this settlement and put this thing behind 
us. The problem is that it is neither in our best interest nor will 
it put this behind us. Our nations interest is best served by a free 
and open market.
    This agreement would only pave the way for Microsoft to 
consolidate the monopolies it currently holds and use them to move 
into other areas that they currently have a presence in, but do not 
yet control. This agreement is not about the past, but about the 
future and that is what scares me most.
    By the way, I should mention that I am speaking here as an 
individual and a professional, but not on behalf of my employer. 
Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Kristopher K. Klindworth
    Database Administrator
    Carle Clinic Association
    Urbana, Illinois.



MTC-00025150

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's my opinion that Microsoft fulfilled the demands of it's 
customers. I personally am appalled at the actions of the states 
that were involved in the suit.
    Microsoft has allowed other high tech companies to flourish and 
has pushed the technology to where it is today. If it were not for 
Microsoft I feel that we would be putting with substandard software, 
hardware and interfaces.
    The government in this case is ``shooting'' itself in 
the foot by punishing a company that has done nothing but answer the 
requests of its customers. Having worked within the computer 
industry for the past 10 years, I have seen Microsoft make decision 
and implement marketing strategies, that those that complain only 
wish they would/could have made. Shame on all of you for damaging 
this company and trying make Microsoft ``suffer''.
    I will make Microsoft my prime software vendor, and I will STOP 
purchasing products from the companies that have done nothing but 
whine and complain like children about this suit.
    My voting and financial donations this year will also reflect my 
opinion.
    --Dale Meredith
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025151

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:51pm
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,
    Christina Greywitt
    1914 Coe's Post Run
    Westlake, OH 44145-2021



MTC-00025152

From: Sandy W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 27594]]

David Walker
229 Lee Street
Rock Hill, SC 29730
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The reason for this correspondence is to express my support of 
the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust case and to state 
I believe you should do likewise. For far too long Microsoft has 
been coerced into court, spending millions that it could be using to 
build better products and create jobs.
    The settlement reached will give computer makers broad new 
abilities to offer non-Microsoft products, either as separate 
operating systems or as components on Microsoft operating systems. 
This settlement will actually give competitors new advantages 
against Microsoft. Unbelievably, competitors still are condemning 
this settlement because they want something that is much more 
detrimental and unfair for Microsoft.
    I strongly urge you to support the settlement that is available 
in this case and to repel those interests that want to derail it.
    Sincerely,
    David Walker



MTC-00025153

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:53pm
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,
    Kenneth Burt
    17 Bel Aire Ave.
    Merrimack, NH 03054-3712



MTC-00025154

From: Todd Henderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft
CC: tormist@ag. state.ia.us@inetgw


MTC-00025154 0001
January 22, 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:
    As a small businessman that has been active in the Iowa 
political process for years, I write to you today because I have 
come to feel strongly about the Microsoft antitrust case. I feel 
that the U.S. Department of Justice is trying to settle this case in 
a manner that does not adequately represent the citizens of this 
country, let alone the international community.
    If my information is correct, Microsoft has already been found 
to engage in practices that violate antitrust laws, and they should 
not be exempt, just as I am not exempt. If Microsoft does not like 
the present scope of antitrust laws, they need to work to have 
Congress change them, not arbitrarily do as they please. The Justice 
Department's attempt to settle this case only reinforces their 
monopoly.
    I do not intend to ramble on about all the issues of this broad 
reaching case that disturbs me, but feel that the very fact that I 
have this opportunity to be heard, and to have Iowa Attorney General 
Tom Miller and his staff take an active role in challenging the U.S. 
Justice Department, is reassuring.
    I was taught as a child that a punishment must fit the crime. It 
appears the U.S. Department of Justice does not hold this belief. 
Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely
    Todd Henderson
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Cc: Attorney General Tom Miller
    

MTC-00025154--0002



MTC-00025155

From: Bill Beyer
To: ``Microsoft.atr (a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing as a concerned citizen regarding the Microsoft 
Antitrust Case.
    Over the past several years the Microsoft Antitrust Case has 
been litigated on both the State and Federal level. Recently the 
Federal government and 9 states have reached an agreement with 
Microsoft. I believe coming to settlement with Microsoft is good for 
consumers, the industry and most importantly the American economy. 
Now is NOT the time to continue litigation on this case. Doing so 
only benefits the lawyers and a handful of wealthy competitors. More 
importantly prolonged litigation on this case negatively affects 
consumers, the industry and the American economy.
    Please settle this case now as I believe it is in the people's 
best interests.
    Bill Beyer,
    707 West 4th St. #25,
    Long Beach, CA 90802



MTC-00025156

From: David Gilman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm not sure if I've sent you email before or not but in either 
case... Please settle this lawsuit as quickly as possible. It has 
been a total waste from the beginning. Microsoft never harmed 
consumers. The case was a brilliant move but their competitors who 
were, and continue to be, unable to compete in the open market. 
Microsoft is being punished for being successful. The case has 
damaged the economy and the entrepreneurial spirit in the hi-tech 
industry. The CASE and not Microsoft has damaged consumers.
    Thanks,
    djg



MTC-00025157

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Please Do Not Delay Settlement
    Hello:
    I would like to voice my opinion of the Microsoft Settlement. I 
feel that this settlement is just and very fair for all parties in 
this matter. You have more important matters to take care of rather 
than to delay this settlement. Let Microsoft complete this 
settlement as stated so that they can get on with business. I bet if 
this settlement is granted the economy will begin to pick up pace 
shortly thereafter.
    So, please grant the settlement because it is fair for all 
concerned.
    Sincerely,
    Russell Spruill and Family



MTC-00025158

From: railbender 30378304863059430702 @msn.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
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 Willett
    534 West Cheyenne Road
    Colorado Springs, CO 80906-2468



MTC-00025159

From: Claude Bravmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I feel that instead of constantly harassing Microsoft that the 
company should be

[[Page 27595]]

allowed to do business with as little outside/governmental 
interference as possible. We don't need more government 
interference, we need more and better products developed and 
marketed by companies that have the ability and desire to produce 
those products.
    Claude S. Bravmann



MTC-00025160

From: Gordon Bane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement will be good for consumers and software 
manufactures and competitors
    Gordon Bane



MTC-00025161

From: Shannon Vest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is the kind of company that Anti-trust laws were made 
for. Microsoft has a long history of making money from resources 
that were once traded freely among computer programmers.
    Microsoft has hurt the computer industry through abusing their 
monopoly on operating systems. In a hundred years, history will bear 
this out I believe, as people start to examine the differences 
between the advances that were made against the advancements that 
COULD have been made in a more level market.
    Look at the features in the first or second version of Word?, 
and look at the features in the current version. Are the tiny 
differences in productivity worth the thousands ($10,000+) that 
keeping your application up to speed with the ``new'' 
operating system will cost a single user?
    NO!
    But WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE! Because of the nature of operating 
systems these days, a person HAS to upgrade, because inevitably, the 
simple updates to the system you've purchased will over time render 
your machine useless without the aforementioned ``new'' 
operating system that is always around the corner.
    Microsoft has already done all the damage it can do. The 
settlement will reflect whether or not the Government can admit that 
damage. Please don't let them off the hook by giving them huge 
inroads to the education market.
    Please show some common sense with dealing with this company. 
The government certainly have the people to understand what's going 
on. All that's left is to stand up for what is fair.
    Sincerely,
    Shannon Vest
    Computer Programmer
    Edmond, Oklahoma



MTC-00025162

From: Claudia Lively :)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:00pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please get this behind us BY SETTLING.
    Our country has much more important issues than interfering with 
the successful business because of complaints by complainers. If we 
don't keep plunging ahead, we may belong to England again.
    Thanks



MTC-00025163

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:02pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    In the interest of the U.S. economy, please do not let 
disgruntled competitors use the courts instead of competing in the 
marketplace. This so-called ``browser war'' is ancient 
history. It is hurting the stock market recovery and the u.s. 
taxpayer as well.
    Microsoft is an engine of economic growth...which we are in 
desperate need of now...as we try to recover from not only the 
effects of the recession, but the tragedy of 9/11.
    ENOUGH LITIGATION. LET'S MOVE ON!
    Jeanne Drury



MTC-00025164

From: arthurguay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In 1992, the General Electric Company was in the process of 
upgrading their local and wide area networks.
    Key to the upgrade were ``best-of-breed'' software 
programs. The nuclear energy division (GENE) had hundreds of 
proprietary programs for design of nuclear systems and components 
and also had access to the UCLA statistical programs (Statpacks).
    What else was needed by mighty GE? We needed an email program! 
Did we write the code ourselves? NO !!! We wanted the best and so we 
all had Microsft's email installed on our PCs. Thousands of us got 
the best, quickly; at a bargain price, and it worked right off the 
bat. NO DEBUGGING NECESSARY. Microsoft talks about the need for 
companies to have ``freedom to innovate''. They have 
demonstrated their technological expertise many times over and this 
nation is better off because they have used that freedom.
    Curtailing that freedom would result in a serious loss by our 
nation



MTC-00025165

From: Tad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Who it May Concern:
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to advise that the 
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust 
case allows and even encourages anticompetitive practices to 
continue. The proposed settlement should not be adopted without 
substantial revision, and is not in the public interest. Of primary 
concern to me are the following issues which are not addressed in 
the proposed settlement (From Dan Kegel's analysis on the web at 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html):
    1. The PFJ places restrictions on how Microsoft licenses its 
products to OEMs, but not on how it licenses products to large users 
such as corporations, universities, or state and local governments, 
collectively referred to as `enterprises'. Yet 
enterprise license agreements often resemble the per-processor 
licenses which were prohibited by the 1994 consent decree in the 
earlier US v. Microsoft antitrust case, in that a fee is charged for 
each desktop or portable computer which could run a Microsoft 
operating system, regardless of whether any Microsoft software is 
actually installed on the affected computer. These agreements are 
anticompetitive because they remove any financial incentive for 
individuals or departments to run non-Microsoft software.
    2. Microsoft uses license terms which prohibit the use of 
Windows-compatible competing operating systems. MSNBC (a subsidiary 
of Microsoft) offers software called NewsAlert. Its EULA states: 
``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install and use 
copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly 
licensed copies of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE 
PRODUCT was designed [e.g., Microsoft Windows(r) 95; Microsoft 
Windows NT(r), Microsoft Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.]. ...'' 
Only the Windows version appears to be available for download. Users 
who run competing operating systems (such as Linux) which can run 
some Windows programs might wish to run the Windows version of News 
Alert, but the EULA prohibits this. MSNBC has a valid interest in 
prohibiting use of pirated copies of operating systems, but much 
narrower language could achieve the same protective effect with less 
anticompetitive impact. For instance, ``MSNBC Interactive 
grants you the right to install and use copies of the SOFTWARE 
PRODUCT on your computers running validly licensed copies of 
Microsoft Windows or compatible operating system.'' would still 
allow use of non-microsoft (yet compatible) operating systems.
    What is the use in allowing the development of Microsoft-
compatible operating systems when Microsoft practices anti-
competitive tactics to restrict the use of all other software? There 
are many other issues we should be concerned with. A more 
comprehensive list can be found in Dan Kegel's analysis at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html.
    Again, I would like to re-iterate that I am commenting on this 
proposed settlement as provided by the Tunney Act, and I do not feel 
that the proposed Microsoft settlement is in the best public 
interest, nor does it effectively prevent Microsoft from continuing 
anti-competitive practices.
    Sincerely,
    Tad L. Goetz
    [email protected]
    303.596.2105
    Aurora, Colorado, USA



MTC-00025166

From: J. Joseph Loehr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:03pm
Subject: worn out and sold out...
    I write to express my absolute dismay and disgust with the 
proposed settlement.
    It is unfathomable how our government could consider allowing 
Microsoft to escape basically intact, with what amounts to not much 
more than a ``slap on the hand, and please don't do it 
again''. If I were Bill Gates,

[[Page 27596]]

based on how much his company is convicted of doing, and how little 
he is being punished, after such a long, long delay, I don't think 
I'd hesitate to aggressively pursue the next opportunity to dominate 
and monopolize any market. If you think he will, you are sadly 
naive. As it is, I'm CEO of a small software company, and I and 
every single CEO of software companies I personally know is well 
aware of the fact that Microsoft is essentially escaping real and 
corrective penalties. They have literally decimated and intimidated 
100's of software companies into irrelevance, and they do the same 
with customers, essentially controlling all the choices that are 
truly available to the typical business. Only the most advanced and 
astute businesses are able to function without absolute dependence 
on the Microsoft monopoly. And it will apparently continue. Nothing 
in this settlement brings significant recompense to the companies 
and customers who have injured by over 15 years of Microsoft 
predatory practices.
    To have won the conviction against Microsoft was a great step 
forward. Unbelievably, you've chosen, on behalf of the American 
Public, to give back that advance in the current settlement. I thank 
God that there are still some state governments intelligent enough 
to recognize your capitulation, and who are refusing to settle. I 
can only imagine that politics have played into this significantly. 
Essentially, Microsoft's money and influence has resulted in a 
change of priority regarding pursuit of a Microsoft breakup. I want 
you to know that as a voting Republican, and small business owner, I 
am seething about the Justice department's cowardice and compromise 
in this matter. With unlimited resources and a guilty verdict 
already in your hand, you should be ashamed. You are supposed to 
protect the public and business community. In this, you have 
managed, tragically, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
    Joseph Loehr
    CEO
    PSO Profit Technologies



MTC-00025167

From: P. McDermott-Wells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    RE: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been most disturbed by the Federal government's continued 
proceedings against Microsoft Corporation. In my opinion, the entire 
suit brought by the Federal government and several states was 
extremely ill-founded, and strikes a negative blow at the very heart 
of the free enterprise system through which this country has 
prospered.
    I bought my first ?personal? computer in 1978. It was an Ohio 
Scientific brand, and it contained 3 separate CPUs and 3 separate 
operating systems. One of the operating systems was CP/M, which was 
the front-runner at that time. The second operating system was DOS 
(by Microsoft). I no longer remember the name of the third operating 
system, as it never became widely used. There was no ?standard? in 
PC operating systems at that time, but it was presumed at that time 
that CP/M would become the prevailing operating system.
    Obviously, that did not happen. Microsoft's DOS and later its 
Windows operating system because the prevailing product in the 
market.
    There are many reasons for this, including:
    1. Superior feature content which was readily accepted by users
    2. Wide selection of compatible application software, due to a 
programmer-friendly development interface
    3. Availability of information to enable developers to write 
applications to run on this operating system
    4. Affiliate and partnership programs with developers, software 
and hardware vendors
    In short, Microsoft came to the forefront of the industry by 
offering ?a better mousetrap? than the competition. The Federal 
government itself has affirmed this fact by making Microsoft 
products its own desktop standards. (Our company had the privilege 
of delivering training on Microsoft products to all of the regional 
offices of the General Services Administration several years ago.)
    Microsoft has contributed immensely to the prosperity of this 
country. And there are thousands of small businesses like ours that 
would probably not even exist today if we had not had the benefit of 
Microsoft's partner programs.
    It is an extremely dangerous precedent to allow a competitor in 
the open market to bring suit when it fails to ?win? in the market 
place. Forcing a company to share its proprietary and confidential 
research and development information in order to allow its 
competitors to better compete squelches the free market initiative 
to invest in R&D. It also has a decidedly malodorous aura of 
Socialism.
    In my opinion, this continued legal action is motivated as much 
by the anticipated revenues of the legal firms involved as by the 
competitors? wishes to gain marketplace by any means possible ? an 
obvious instance of the ?deep pockets? syndrome. Even though the 
settlement goes further than original complaints in the suit, 
Microsoft has chosen to settle so that it and the market can move 
forward. The settlement requires Microsoft to disclose information 
regarding how it develops it software. Microsoft has also agreed not 
retaliate against computer-makers that may ship software that would 
compete with its Windows operating system. Just these two remedies 
by themselves will have an enormous impact on Microsoft, but there 
are even more stipulations than that, as you are well aware.
    Although I firmly believe that Microsoft should not even be 
subject to these settlement requirements because I believe it won 
the prevailing market position by offering superior products, it 
would be beneficial to the entire industry and to this country to 
confirm the current settlement agreement and move on to other 
issues. Therefore, we are urging you to confirm the current 
settlement agreement as soon as possible, and let the IT industry be 
free to develop products in an unfettered free enterprise 
environment.
    Yours truly,
    Pat McDermott-Wells, President
    Mega-Data Services, Inc.
    Tel. 561-798-3940
    www.mega-data.com



MTC-00025168

From: Alexander Kalymon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I believe that the terms of the terms of the antitrust 
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft are 
reasonable and fair to all parties. It it critical for a speedy 
economic recovery of this great nation of ours that a companies such 
as Microsoft be permitted to continue to innovate and enhance their 
products in order to maintain their position of providing the 
favored software used by more computer users than any other around 
the world.
    We need to put this behind us and move forward.
    Respectfully,
    Alexander Kalymon



MTC-00025169

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata Hesse
    Thank you for reviewing my comments on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I have viewed the proposed Microsoft settlement and 
believe that largely serves consumers well. I believe that the 
settlement will prevent Microsoft from abusing its monopoly position 
but will still leave Microsoft room to continue innovating. 
Microsoft has brought some order to the chaos that ruled in the old 
days. I don t think that Microsoft should be penalized for that. 
Please respond so that I will know that you received my mail.
    Sincerely
    Charlie Holloway



MTC-00025170

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I suppport this settlement. Let's get on with it. Enough time 
and money has been spent already.



MTC-00025171

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government can be helpful in many areas, international trade 
and diplomacy to name a few. But I believe in the new economy it has 
bitten off more then it should chew. The software industry is a 
grotesque anomaly of companies of yesterday and today, enemies, 
allies, and then enemies once again all merged into one. They are 
fighting together against a force which is unstoppable

[[Page 27597]]

by any government force this is time and progress. Every minute that 
passes the highly perishable goods of software become rotten. The 
wares must succeed or be trampled by big business, world political 
powers, or even little children on a PC.
    This market is too dynamic to be understood and acted upon by 
any government, even one as progressive as ours. It is a valiant 
effort, however inhumane, to control such an animal in the way that 
has been done. Billions of dollars of progress have been misspent to 
defend against the possibility of massive controls.
    Disservice has already been done to the United States and the 
rest of the world. Is more punishment necessary?
    Jonathan Tolson
    Tulsa, OK 74105



MTC-00025172

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government s suggested settlement is both fair and 
equitable. Please let it stand as is with finality.



MTC-00025173

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully support the DOJ settlement on 11-3-01. 
Microsoft has led the PC revolution and should be congratulated for 
their significant achievements rather than sued. This entire 
antitrust action has been a blatant attempt by Microsoft s 
frustrated competitors to get the results in the courtroom that they 
have been unable to get in the marketplace.



MTC-00025174

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am appalled that a settlement cannot be reached. This is 
supposed to be America the home of capitalism and free enterprise. I 
vote for the settlement!



MTC-00025175

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of Microsoft being able to produce new tools . 
However this requires listening to the customers as to what they 
want. Currently it appears that Microsoft is not listening. There 
are several points that Microsoft needs to consider: 1) Do not be 
afraid of competition welcome it. Stop being afraid of Browsers 
currently if I had a choice I would choose IE. This one is a no 
brainer! 2)Licensing --A salmon swims upstream against the 
prevailing battle--yes they usually make it but then they die.
    You can force your invasive licensing and .NET on the world and 
you may upset everyone doing it--then your company 
dies--think about it. 3) Cost of product vs pirating--a) 
let's face it there are some people out there that will steal no 
matter what b) there are those who want to comply but the cost is 
out of reach-- consider $100 for FULL version of any OS except 
high end servers $100--$150 for FULL version of 
Office--offer larger discounts of multiple license (Home School 
and Business) c) Multiple computer families--either create a 
Home license (affordable) for multiple computers or lower the prices 
per CPU
    Remember APPLE essentially built their customer base on students 
having MAC computers/software in the classroom. Personally Microsoft 
falls way short--steeper discounts for school. If Microsoft 
does not upset the customer with their attitude they won t care 
about competition--the majority of the customers will buy 
Microsoft products. I would hate to see that go away--What 
about you!



MTC-00025176

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Support Microsoft and the settlement



MTC-00025177

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lets leave MSN alone.



MTC-00025178

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a long time IT professional with 36 years experience. I 
have participated in the evolution of information technology over a 
long period of time. I was there at the start of the personal 
computer revolution and have seen Microsoft become the world s 
largest software company--starting from that point--by 
making good decisions good products and competing effectively. From 
the beginning I was amazed by the antitrust action against 
Microsoft. End users and IT organizations have only benefitted from 
Microsoft's products. It's clear that the only entities that benefit 
from continued litigation are Micrsoft s competitors. It s time to 
bring this sorry chapter to an end by putting this settlement into 
effect and moving on. I'll always be amazed that my government chose 
to hold back a high growth business segment where we lead the world. 
A lot of damage has been done--let s cut our losses and move 
on. Thank you for your consideration.



MTC-00025179

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that Microsoft s innovations have played a very 
positive role in our develop as a technology leader and hope they 
are able to continue to innovate without undue restraints. I urge a 
settlement so that Microsoft and the Department of Justice can both 
focus on more pressing issues.



MTC-00025180

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the settlement



MTC-00025181

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    It is a pleasure to add my voice to those of millions of other 
Americans who are appalled at some of the steps being taken to 
harass a company that demonstrated to the entire world the 
advantages of our capitalistic system. Because of our system which 
rewards those who are innovative hard working and display leadership 
Microsoft Corporation has emerged as one of the leading companies 
not only in the United States but in the entire world. They have 
attained their position by innovative merchandising and superior 
products which they continue to update and improve while keeping 
their prices on a downward course. In addition Microsoft has created 
features which have facilitated the use of technical products 
especially among those who find it difficult to integrate these 
features when offered separately.
    What more can our system ask of a company than to provide 
continually improving products that are on the cutting edge of 
technology at lower and lower prices and thereby increasing 
productivity and the well being of all our citizens. Those companies 
that were unable to compete in the market place because their 
products were less suitable and their merchandising less 
satisfactory were unsuccessful and companies such as Borland Novell 
Netscape and Word Perfect were in fact voted out by the American 
consumer. Why then at taxpayer expense are actions taken on behalf 
of other private companies such as those noted above and such 
companies as Sun Oracle and AOL to divert Microsoft from its mission 
of providing the best and most advanced technology to American 
business and consumers at ever lower prices? If these companies 
would devote their energie



MTC-00025182

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let s get over with this lawsuit and leave Microsoft alone. Our 
country is built on competition. I love Microsoft and there 
products.
    Mary Ann Bullamore



MTC-00025183

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel this is a more than fair settlement. If it is the 
consumer you are concerned about and not the competitions best 
interests then this should be done and over with and this settlement 
accepted.



MTC-00025184

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 27598]]

Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I approve of this settlement only because it brings to an end an 
ill advised and wrongful intrusion of the Department of Justice and 
the courts into the legitimate competitive ecomomic processes of 
industry.



MTC-00025185

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My comments on U.S. vs. Microsoft. It is in the public s best 
interest to bring this settlement agreement with Microsoft to an 
end.



MTC-00025186

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has suffered enough under the government s Anti-Trust 
lawsuits. A company marketing low-price and high-quality wares is 
being sued by the government for driving its competitors into the 
ground with lower prices and free extra applications. Isn t this 
what capitalism is all about???
    This madness needs to stop we are punishing people if they are 
successful in life! I hope you consider that by making this 
settlement happen you are also helping to solidify the stock market 
also. Since the crusade against Microsoft began 4 years ago its 
stock has been tumbling bringing along with it the Dow Jones.



MTC-00025187

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was once in business and I couldn t compete. I had to take it 
on the chin and start over. No one rescued me. Why are the 
plaintiffs against Microsoft any different?



MTC-00025188

From: Marc Turkel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Perhaps, as a Microsoft Employee, my input wouldn't be 
considered objective. However, as someone who lived and breathed the 
Mac OS platform for 10 years before becoming a Microsoft full time 
employee 5.5 years ago, I can tell you this company lives to improve 
the lives of consumers in every way, every day.
    Respectfully stated, the DOJ anti-trust suit seems out of step 
with most of the American public or, more germane to the case, what 
consumers perceive about the value Microsoft delivers in today's 
marketplace. In my travels, talking to relatives and friends, many 
of whom are still running the Mac OS, there is the overwhelming 
sense that this lawsuit doesn't represent the best interests of 
consumers but rather, represents the special interests of smaller 
less successful companies. This then, would be an anti-trust case 
motivated by commercial interests; the DOJ is being leveraged as a 
competitive tool by those seeking an advantage in the marketplace. 
This is a cynical message for the public and the world from the 
architects of a free market economy.
    Since we have a dominant operating system or platform, every 
electronic interaction consumers receive is compatible with the 
system you're running, Linux, Mac or Windows. The incentive for 
software developers to write interoperability in to their 
applications is not altruistic but economic. If there were no 
central operating system, we would live in a world of fragmented 
communication; indeed the very foundation of today's electronic 
infrastructure would be truncated and shriveled by comparison. In 
such a scenario, the ability for the average consumer to own, 
operate and enjoy a computer, would be practically non existent. 
Computers would still be niche item, enjoyed by a few, the value to 
society and unfulfilled promise.
    The vision Bill Gates had was, ``A computer on every desk 
and in every home''. Although this vision is no longer 
operative at Microsoft, it is plausible that as a society we've 
arrived as close to this reality as is possible. Due to an economy 
of scale, prices of hardware and software have dropped while the 
power and functionality of these products has increased 
substantially.
    Is Microsoft perfect? No. The best I could hope for is a 
pragmatic and systematic review of the value delivered by Microsoft 
to the public and the contribution Microsoft has made (directly and 
indirectly) to the experience of computing overall. Then, as duly 
elected officials, make decisions in the best interests of consumers 
and the American public. Reject the sour grapes of competitors who 
would gladly trade places with Microsoft if they could.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Marc A. Turkel
    American Citizen
    11221 75th Ave. NE
    Kirkland, WA. 98034



MTC-00025189

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has done a great job and I think it should be treated 
fairly and justly. I am proud to be a user of this great company and 
trust it will not be bothered by further litigation.
    Doris & Winnie Jacobson



MTC-00025190

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am FOR the settlement



MTC-00025191

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I AM VERY SATISFIED WITH MICROSOFT AS MY SUPPLIER OF MY NEEDS TO 
OPERATE.
    THEY ARE SUPERIOR TO ANY OTHERS THAT I HAVE USED. LEAVE THEM 
ALONE.



MTC-00025192

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government decision about Microsoft should be left alone



MTC-00025193

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I beleive the action being taken by the DoJ is a proper one. 
Microsoft should allow OEM s to offer whatever packages they deem 
best for their customers. If Microsoft Middleware is as greate as MS 
believes it is then natural Free-market should determine that not 
the locking down of an OS level access.
    I also content that Microsoft does have a great product for some 
uses and UNIX is good for other uses but that should be the 
determination of the end-user not the manufactorer of a product.



MTC-00025194

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a FARCE ! Microsoft should be 
PUNISHED not scolded !



MTC-00025195

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems we have become a society of legal nit pickers. We need 
more latitude in business for inovation without looking over your 
shoulder for a potential law suit. Once a legal action is 
filed(which is a relatively trivial effort) it can generate millions 
in expenses and lost time for the defendant. There should be a 
better process to pre screen anti trust legal activity to prevent 
the non meritorious actions from causing the market place disruption 
that occur with examples such as the many Microsoft actions. I am 
sure a general public pole at this point would have very few 
supporters of continuing the Microsoft suits.
    We are undisputed leaders in the world in a few areas software 
is one why screw it up.
    JHH



MTC-00025197

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the Microsoft settlement is O.K. Microsoft has done 
a lot for the computer and probably does it more economically than a 
bunch of little companies could do.



MTC-00025198

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN I WISH TO EXPRESS TO YOU THAT THIS

[[Page 27599]]

SETTLEMENT BE DONE AND OVER WITH..WE HAVE SPENT ENOUGH TIME ON THIS. 
I CAN ONLY SAY THAT I HAVE NO LOVE FOR BILL GATES OR MICROSOFT BUT 
FEEL WE SHOULD SETTLE AND BE DONE WITH THIS...
    THANK YOU



MTC-00025199

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    SETTLE IT AND LET THE COMPANY GET ON WITH RESEARCH AND BUSINESS



MTC-00025200

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let Microsft alone.This is a country of inovation.



MTC-00025202

From: Ryan Dewalt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those 
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That 
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    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 Dewalt
    Ryan Dewalt [email protected] 
[email protected]



MTC-00025203

From: Lura and Dave Ratts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I want to express my concern that the Microsoft settlement is so 
long in coming. I feel strongly that we need to stop harassing 
Microsoft. Microsoft has already agreed to hide its internet 
explorer icon from the desktop.
    Any further action serves only as a gift to the competitors of 
Microsoft. No money will go to the consumers, supposedly the ones 
who have been hurt by Microsoft's icon's being on the desktop when 
the software is purchased and installed.
    I know that I made a conscious decision as to which browser I 
wanted to use, even though the Microsoft icon showed up on my 
desktop. Surely that is not too difficult to do for the average 
consumer. We need to allow the competition that exists between 
companies to do its thing. It is not right to artificially 
``set'' the competition in order that one company or 
another has an advantage over the others. It would be the same as 
making Safeway change some of their ways of doing business just 
because other grocers are not able to do as well.
    This sets a terrible precedent for the future. One of the things 
that makes America great is the free enterprise system!
    Thank you for your interest in my opinion.
    Lura Ratts
    Vancouver, WA



MTC-00025204

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please lets end the fight against microsoft so that they can put 
the money they spend on lawyers into new and better software. My 
personal opinion is that a lot of the productivity that is being 
experienced now is the direct result of computer technology of which 
microsoft is the leading company in the software industry.
    Thanks
    Ronald Don



MTC-00025205

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the settlement with Microsoft. I believe Microsoft is 
a great company. They have greatly benefited my business with their 
software. I think our government should put its resources to better 
use rather than continuing to harrass a fine company like Microsoft.



MTC-00025206

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe in free business. If you invent an idea it shouldn t 
be taken from you. Jealousy is the usual reason.



MTC-00025207

From: Roy Weeks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: DOJ:
    It seems to me that today in this country the government is out 
to take as much money from every legitimate business it can; tobacco 
whose product was, and still is a legitimate product for those over 
21 years of age. In fact it was legal for years for those 18 and 
over in many states. What compounds your hypocrisy is the fact that 
you enjoy millions of dollars for pet programs on the backs of those 
who choose of their own free will to purchase tobacco profits; ref. 
federal tax on tobacco products.
    Additionally, the federal government subsidized the tobacco 
farmers for many years probably still does. Now you have sued one of 
the most successful high tech corporations in the history of this 
nation because they provided the ``best'' product to the 
American public. It's time to get off your pedestal and rethink what 
your greed for these successful company's profits....you already 
take too much from ``john q. public.'' You've lost this 
citizen's respect based on your past and present actions.
    Roy L. Weeks
    Roy L. Weeks
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025208

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    hands off Microsoft. government s role is to protect me under 
the constitution supply me with water roads and control the 
enviroment though limited taxation. other than that let the free 
market control itself.



MTC-00025209

From: john licht III
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Licht
331 Harbor Place SW
Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548-6503
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The government has been 
harassing Microsoft for over three years now and it is time to put 
the issue to rest. A settlement has been reached and the terms are 
fair, the government should accept it and move on.
    Some people believe that Microsoft has gotten off easy; in fact 
they have not. The main issues have been settled. Microsoft has 
agreed to give computer makers the flexibility to install and 
promote any software that they see fit. Microsoft has also agreed 
not to enter into any agreement that obligates computer makers to 
use only Microsoft software. Microsoft has also agreed to provide 
their competitors with part of the Window's base code in order for 
them to develop more compatible software.
    Microsoft has given up much in order to settle. It is time to 
allow them and the US economy to move forward. Please accept the 
Microsoft antitrust settlement. I am really tired of hearing Oracle, 
Sun, and Aol whine?
    Sincerely,
    John Licht

[[Page 27600]]

    cc: Representative Jefferson Miller



MTC-00025210

From: John Crean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:07pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    If Netscape was a superior product I would be using it.
    It is not and never will be.
    This is a ridiculous action by an inferior company to gain an 
advantage.
    The only thing Microsoft is guilty of is supplying the public 
with a quality product. The free market is the judge not Netscape
    John Crean
    Oneonta NY



MTC-00025211

From: Mohammad Shakeri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although AOL has been lobbying against the settlement through 
it's media power Time Warner, I believe that the settlement terms 
are reasonable and fair to all parties. The terms of the settlement 
are tough, but it represents the best opportunity for Industry and 
Microsoft to move technology forward and offer the best solutions to 
customers.
    Thank you,
    Mohammad Shakeri



MTC-00025212

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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.
    Please stop the madness. Please quit hurting the American people 
and kick these cases out of the court.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025213

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:05pm
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 Karaus
    1057 So. 28 St.
    Omaha, NE 68105



MTC-00025214

From: Jeff Zheng
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am for the Microsoft settlement.
    It's time for the companies to drop the lawsuits and get on with 
the business of competition.



MTC-00025215

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Clint Perry
    797 W Walden Hills Dr
    Murray, UT 84123-5407



MTC-00025216

From: cvinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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 encourage the swift enactment 
of the settlement reached between Microsoft and the Justice 
Department. Over the past few years, I have followed the litigation 
process with great interest.
    In this time I have been increasingly upset with the amount of 
time and money that have been wasted over this dispute. I believe 
that the terms of the settlement are fair and that the agreement 
should be enacted.
    Microsoft has made many concessions throughout this mediation 
process. Microsoft has agreed to license Windows at the same rate to 
the larger PC manufacturers. In addition, Microsoft will also agree 
to disclose information regarding the internal interface design of 
Windows. Microsoft has also provided for the creation of the 
technical board that will review the stipulations of this case.
    Microsoft has made many compromises in an attempt to resolve 
this issue. I trust that the Justice Department would concur and 
enact the settlement with haste.
    Sincerely,
    Clay Vinson
    1602 Syracuse Drive
    Richardson, TX 75081



MTC-00025217

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:07pm
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,
    Ron Baker
    20444 S. Sweetwood Lane
    Oregon City, OR 97045



MTC-00025218

From: Paul Tomori
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--remove the chains that bind 
Microsoft... show some respect for our capitalistic ways
    To Department of Justice,
    With regards to the current legal issues concerning Microsoft, I 
would like to stand behind Microsoft.
    It is apparent that the practices undertaken by Microsoft, if 
they had been taken by a smaller company on the rise, would have 
been rewarded. They would have been congratulated on their 
competitive strategizing and their superior products. It is

[[Page 27601]]

only because Microsoft is a big company and that its competitors 
whiners that this has come to a legal battle. Had Microsoft been 
small and relatively unknown, there would not be this case. It is 
because they are big that the issue is at hand. They are being 
punished for being good at what they do... This is symptomatic of 
our ``age of resentment'' and a culture who asserts its 
``entitlement'' to the unearned.
    My entire company used to use Netscape. We put up with the bugs 
in their software and the inconsistencies of layout in trying to 
design websites. When Microsoft came out with their superior 
browser, we dumped Netscape BY CHOICE and now eagerly await any new 
innovations Microsoft is able to introduce. If it weren't for the 
innovations presented by Microsoft and of their commitment to 
produce cutting edge consumer products, I would not have my 
business; I would not have my career.
    With regard to this over pricing issue... how utterly absurd! I 
don't think they charge enough !! Show some respect for the core 
values of America. Let Microsoft be free to design its products as 
it sees fit and to attach whatever price they so desire. If people 
don't like the price, they can do without!! If Microsoft tries to 
price their products too high, the competition will move in. I 
thought this was the beauty of capitalism. I thought this was the 
differentiating aspect of America. I thought this was the seat of 
our example to the world that democracy coupled with capitalism is 
the only truly ethical system. The funny thing is... I believe 
Microsoft is only just getting started. There is so much left to do 
in the world of computing... from Business services to Health 
services to Artificial Intelligence to communications... etc... 
etc... Microsoft will rise to these challenges. That is if you let 
them continue unhindered.
    Thank you,
    Paul Tomori
    Paul Tomori, President
    ACTION Corporation
    Website Management Excellence
    http://www.ActionCorporation.com
    [email protected]
    ph. 1-905-734-1780
    fx. 1-905-734-7093
    cp. 1-905-933-8616
    tf. 1-866-848-7778
    CC:[email protected]



MTC-00025219

From: Richard Power
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    LeavesFolks, it's time to put all this nonsense behind us. We, 
as consumers, were never hurt by Microsoft. We were helped. Legal 
action against Microsoft is and always was totally unwarranted. Just 
settle it and let's get our economy back rolling again.
    Richard Power
    Attorney at Law
    P.O. Box 476
    Shingle Springs, CA 95682
    (530) 677-6344
    www.appealsunlimited.com



MTC-00025220

From: Phillip Cripps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft/DOJ settlement is not in 
the public interest for the following reasons:
    1. Microsoft has been found guilty of crimes but the proposed 
settlement does not punish them--it only modifies certain 
future behavior.
    2. Proposed limitations on their future behavior are not 
adequate since Windows XP already extends the Microsoft monopoly.
    3. The proposed settlement fails to remedy the findings of fact.
    4. Microsoft does not admit guilt.
    5. Microsoft violated the Tunney Act by lobbying the Vice 
President and members of Congress and failed to appropriately 
disclose it.
    I urge you to do the right thing and reject the settlement and 
impose remedies that will properly reflect the seriousness of 
Microsoft's illegal monopolistic activities.
    Phillip Cripps
    6945 De Celis Place
    Van Nuys, CA 91406
    818-994-8055
    [email protected]



MTC-00025221

From: Shelley Way
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have worked at Microsoft for over ten years. It has been an 
incredible experience to be part of this company. I started here 
supporting customers on Microsoft products. This companies success 
has been in listening to what customers want and delivering it.
    I have seen this company grow from approximately 10,000 
employees to over 50,000 employees. I have seen the tremendous 
growth of high tech jobs in the Puget Sound region and throughout 
the United States. It amazes me that the Clinton administration can 
take credit for our unprecedented economic growth and yet attack the 
company that significantly contributed to that growth over the past 
decade. I can assure you that Microsoft employees in general are 
hard working, smart, and driven to change the world through 
technology. We are also people of integrity. We compete aggressively 
with other software companies, but isn't that the nature of a 
capitalist society? Microsoft employees are also very generous. 
Hundreds of employees quietly donated hundreds of hours and hundreds 
of thousands of dollars to charity as well as contributing time and 
resources to disaster relief efforts such as the recent tragedy in 
New York on September 11th. I have also seen millions of dollars 
donated to charities since I started. Libraries and schools around 
the world have benefited from Bill and Melinda Gates and Microsoft's 
prosperity.
    The Windows product has created tens of thousands of jobs across 
the United States, and provided great opportunities for even our 
competitors. I don?t think it is in the US consumers, our economy, 
or the high tech industry's best interest to bring down this 
company.
    In the short sidedness and self-serving attitude of the DOJ and 
our competitors, they have brought this suit against Microsoft. 
Judge Jackson has sent a dangerous precedent. Based on his 
interpretation of the anti-trust law, AOL, Cisco, Sun Microsystems, 
Intel, and Apple are all ``monopolists'' as well. Waging 
an attack on these companies as well would decimate our economy and 
jeopardize the United States preeminent position as the World 
Technology leader.
    I would ask, as a one of the 50,000 employees at Microsoft, to 
settle this matter fairly and equitably.
    Sincerely,
    Shelley Way
    Seattle, Washington



MTC-00025222

From: filledwiththespirit@
hotmail.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:07pm
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,
    Elizabeth Jacobs
    1308 1/2 Douglas
    Wayne, NE 68787



MTC-00025223

From: Dale Hample
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:09pm
Subject: Tunney Act comment re: Microsoft
    I am a professor of Communication at Western Illinois 
University. I have been using computers since 1967, and desktop 
computers since 1984. I write from the viewpoint of an informed user 
and concerned citizen. I have no connection with any part of the 
computer industry, except as a consumer.
    As I understand the legal status of the case to this point, 
Microsoft has been found guilty of establishing its monopoly through 
illegal means. As a citizen, I am primarily concerned that no 
individuals or corporation be permitted to retain 
``profits'' obtained illegally.
    Convicted kidnappers don't get to keep the ransom, after all. 
The growth of Microsoft has occurred in good part because of the 
various

[[Page 27602]]

predatory business practices they follow, and I hope that the court 
will take action to undo the profit. It is unreasonable to expect 
the court to be able to compensate the companies that went out of 
business, their employees who lost jobs (or who failed in their 
hopes for entreprenuerial success), or the users who found 
themselves trying to use software that wasn't supported because the 
manufacturer was bankrupt.
    If you can find a remedy to undo the damage, I hope you will. 
But even if you cannot, you must destroy the profit. Part of your 
responsibility is to ensure that no one can enrich themselves by 
breaking the law, and then just waiting out the length of time that 
it takes to move a substantial anti-trust case through the court 
system.
    The proposed remedy will not work, in my view. The finding of 
fact clearly establishes a presumption that Microsoft will certainly 
try to exploit the inevitable ambiguities in your 
ruling--inevitable because the computer industry, its products, 
its services, its very vocabulary, change at a very rapid rate. 
More, the previous court findings justify the assumption that 
Microsoft will acatually try to break the law. I am certain that the 
court is not so naive as to suppose that Microsoft lacked high 
quality legal advice throughout its monopolistic ascent.
    The same lawyers who told them that they could break the law for 
years before anyone could successfully press a case will tell them 
the same thing again, within hours of your ruling.
    I believe that Microsoft should be broken up, and each of the 
resulting parts should be placed in such financial straits that they 
will have difficulty competing. To permit even parts of the present 
Microsoft to inherit the illegal advantages of monopoly would 
justify the arrogant contempt for law displayed in Microsoft's 
actions to date.
    Dr. Dale Hample
    Dept. Communication
    Western Illinois University
    Macomb IL 61455



MTC-00025224

From: David Muller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft actually 
entrenches their operating system further in our culture by placing 
it deeper in the educational system.
    I have been affected by their practice of promoting non-
compliant standards native to the windows operating system that 
limit the functionality of my operating system on websites authored 
with their software. This default ``standard'', acheived 
only by the monopoly of their operating system, attempts to cripple 
the viability of other platforms.
    The company demonstrates no concern over it unfair practices, 
and can surely be expected to continue unless it is appropriately 
restricted. The current settlement is much too favorable to 
Microsoft and does not go far enough in establishing effective 
controls.
    David Muller
    Ransomville, NY 14131



MTC-00025225

From: Torgeir Kateraas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support Microsoft Torgeir Kateraas



MTC-00025226

From: SCS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I strongly support the present agreement, between the DOJ and 
Microsoft, to end the anti-trust litigation.
    To impose further restrictions on Microsoft goes beyond reason 
and gives its competitors advantages--by way of legal 
remedies--that they cannot get in the market.
    Truly yours,
    Sergio C. Stone
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025227

From: shell.net.nz admin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea, enough said.
    - Mr Blair Absalom
    - Westport, BULLER
    - New Zealand
    - Network Administrator--Team SNZ
    - [email protected]
    - www.shell.net.nz
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025228

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    It is obvious to all that this is a misguided political vendeta 
against Microsoft. Everysence this case has started the market and 
then the economy has suffered.
    It is time to let free enterprise work and get the economy going 
again.
    It is a shame the companys that are backing this suit against 
Microsft connot see that they are cutting their own throats by 
destroying the market and the economy.
    Sincerly,
    George G. Ghosn DDS MAGD FICD FPFA



MTC-00025229

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept my comments suggesting that the settlement 
proposed by Microsoft, the DOJ, and 9 states, be accepted without 
modification.
    This case has gone on now for several years. During those years 
consumers have enjoyed lower and lower pricing, increased 
performance and capabilities of both hardware and software, and what 
can only be described as the fruits of competition on every front.
    To suggest that there isn't competition in the OS market is 
silly: just walk down the isles of any computer store and look at 
the dozens of variants of Linux for sale. In Fry's, which is a 
massive computer store in the Bay Area, you will find more books on 
Linux than on Windows. The Mac section is also overflowing.
    Please don't let this case drag on forever. We consumers are in 
favor of the settlement and want it to be resolved.
    Mark Wagner
    2150 E. Interlaken Blvd
    Seattle WA 98112



MTC-00025230

From: Sherene Kershner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement that is being proposed for the 
Microsoft Anti-trust case is reasonable and fair. I believe it 
should be adopted.
    I believe it is time to resolve this issue and move on.
    Thank you,
    Sherene Kershner
    14445 NE 40th #D-102
    Bellevue, WA 98007
    (425) 556-9346



MTC-00025231

From: Robert Dale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Gentlepersons
    I believe the proposed settlement is as wrong as if you were 
handing out a stern look to the guys at Enron. Microsoft's 
predatory, piratic monopolistic practices have been egregious and 
harmful to every computer user in the world, and they must not be 
allowed to continue in this vein.
    Robert C Dale



MTC-00025232

From: Jim (038) Marian Buss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honor the settlement! Get the courts and Politicians out of 
Technology. In the end Technology and consumers lose! Help get the 
economy moving with Microsoft innovation. Put taxpayers money to 
better use!
    AOL is the biggest conglomerate the world has ever seen!!!



MTC-00025233

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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

[[Page 27603]]

going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of 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 Hilmers
    7915 Shady Grove
    Houston, TX 77040-4416



MTC-00025234

From: Nathaniel Gray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I write this letter to state my opposition to the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. It does nothing to 
punish Microsoft for their destructive anticompetetive past behavior 
or restore competition to the operating systems market and makes 
only superficial gestures at preventing additional anticompetetive 
activity in the future. In particular, the open source software 
community, which in many areas is offering the only viable 
competition to Microsoft products, appears to be left out in the 
cold. For example, the proposed settlement gives Microsoft too much 
leeway in deciding what projects to cooperate with on matters of 
interoperability.
    Section III.J.2.b of the proposed settlement allows Microsoft to 
veto the licensing of certain APIs, documentation, and 
communications protocols to any person or entity which does not meet 
``reasonable, objective standards ESTABLISHED BY MICROSOFT for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business.'' 
(emphasis mine) Open source projects are often not-for-profit 
enterprises, and thus there is no business to judge in this manner. 
In addition, given Microsoft's past conduct it is outrageous that 
they should establish the standards by which interoperability 
decisions will be made. Another baffling oversight of the proposed 
settlement is its failure to compel Microsoft to make public its 
many unpublished file formats. One of the most significant barriers 
to success that any new office software project faces is achieving 
the ability to load and save documents in Word, Excel, or Powerpoint 
file formats. Forcing the publication of these formats would finally 
allow viable alternatives to Microsoft Office, reintroducing 
competition to a market that Microsoft has monopolized almost as 
effectively as the operating systems market.
    These are but two examples among many complaints I have against 
the proposed settlement. Rather than repeat the arguments of others 
I will simply refer you to Dan Kegel's thorough and insightful 
analysis of the proposed settlement at:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html and Zimran Ahmed's open 
letter at: http://www.winterspeak.com/columns/121001.html which 
analyzes the effect of the proposed settlement on several well-
established and legitimate open source projects. In addition, please 
read the GNU organization's proposals for remedies that would have a 
real and significant effect on competition in the operating system 
and application markets:
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html
    Microsoft's criminal actions have led to an impoverished 
computing landscape of closed de-facto standards and no competition. 
Any settlement which fails to punish Microsoft in a real way for 
these actions and enable effective interoperability with Microsoft 
products for commercial AND non-commercial competitors is not just. 
Any settlement that does not include strong measures to ensure its 
own enforcement is not just. The current proposed settlement is such 
a settlement. Please do justice for the American consumer by 
rejecting it.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Nathaniel Gray
    Graduate Student
    California Institute of Technology
    Computer Science Department



MTC-00025235

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:19pm
Subject: Comment on the Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice people:
    I started working with microcomputers in 1985. Back then home 
and business users had choices of several different kinds of 
computers. There were Ataris, Commodore 64's, Apples and Apple 
Macintoshes, and IBM compatible computers, to name a few. There were 
several different hardware and software platforms. Things weren't 
compatible with other things, but people shopping for computers had 
several good choices that provided different features and different 
price points.
    You'll notice today that people have only a few choices when 
they want a computer. If you go to the store, you can buy a PC 
running Microsoft Windows, or a Macintosh. The Mac software shelf is 
much smaller than the PC shelf.
    And you know what? If you buy a PC, you take it home and 
instantly get attacked by viruses and identity thieves. Then you 
have to pay Microsoft even more money for an ``upgrade'' 
that fixes some bug that makes it impossible to get any work done.
    You'd think in the last fifteen years that computers would have 
gotten easier to use, but they haven't. Microsoft keeps saying that 
their stuff is winning because of better quality, not because they 
are a monopoly. I don't believe it for a second. I've been here a 
bit, and computers were easier to use in ``85 before Microsoft 
owned everything.
    Lauren P. Burka
    305 Walden Street
    Cambridge, MA 02138
    (617) 876-3574



MTC-00025236

From: Charles Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:17pm
Subject: Letter to the Justice Department regarding Microsoft 
Settlement
    Dear John Ashcroft,
    Attached please find my response to your request for input on 
the Microsoft settlement. Good Luck.
    Sincerely,
    Chuck Graham
    Salem Automation Inc.
    4500 Indiana Ave, Suite 40
    Winston-Salem, NC 27106
    [email protected]
    Phone 336-661-0890xl 06
    Copied to Sue Myrick- US House Rep.
    CC: Jesse Helms



MTC-00025236--0001

Falem Automation Inc.
Systems Integration Specialists
4500 Indiana Ave. Suite 40
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27106
Phone 336 661-0890 ext 106
[email protected]
January 25,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a member of the software industry since graduation with a 
BSClS and BSBA from Ohio State University since 1984, a Microsoft 
stockholder and a Microsoft business partner, I find it refreshing 
to see this ugly chapter of government interference in the fast 
moving high tech industry coming to a close. Microsoft should be 
held to the same laws as every other corporation in the land. 
However, the actual damages to anyone in this case is highly 
suspect. It appears that this case was brought by a number of 
companies unable to succeed in the industry without resorting to the 
courts, and some sympathetic government lawyers eager to hang the 
Microsoft hide on their wall as a trophy. The issue between Netscape 
and Microsoft as long since been settled as evidenced by Netscape 
becoming a Microsoft business partner. Microsoft came up with their 
own browser, a fairly simple piece of software, rather than buy 
Netscape licenses for it's thousands of employees. Since the 
development of the browser was already paid for, they offered the 
browser as part of their operating system to enhance their Internet 
presence. I see nothing wrong with this. The general market has 
flourished well due to the standardization Microsoft provided in 
operating systems and office suites (Word, Excel, etc.). This 
country's government should be treating Microsoft as a national 
treasure. The US government should be approaching Microsoft and 
asking how we can enhance the development of Microsoft and grow the 
software industry in the USA as it is one of the few industries with 
any future in the USA. We are lucky that Bill Gates didn't pack up 
his company and move it across the border into Canada. Other 
countries would nurture a wonderful success such as Microsoft, not 
try to tear it down.
    This lawsuit caused the technology bubble to burst and caused 
more loss in shareholder value for millions of Americans than any 
other single event in history. If I was a government lawyer, this is 
not the legacy I would want to leave behind. A legacy in

[[Page 27604]]

which millions of Americans were robbed of their retirement savings, 
a legacy of millions of layoffs and company closures. And for what? 
What did this lawsuit actually accomplish? Even if Microsoft had 
been broken up, was this a good thing for America? Once again, what 
could the motives behind this lawsuit be other than a bunch of 
``has been'' sour grapes from companies like Sun 
Microsystems who got together with a bunch of underpaid government 
lawyers who want to make a name for themselves and fostered by the 
Clinton administration who may have been angry with Microsoft for 
not contributing enough to the Clinton campaign. Isn't there a 
better use of the justice department's time than this? Isn't there 
any ``real'' criminals that you should be focusing on? The 
settlement, three years and three months in the making, is an 
agreement that fosters competition, increases innovation and ensures 
that all parties involved will be held accountable. Microsoft has 
agreed to a series of provisions that go above and beyond the 
government's original list of grievances. Windows operating system 
internal computer interface and native server interoperability 
protocols will be released by Microsoft to it's very own 
competitors--that is uncalled for, but true -and a first. 
Microsoft will help its competitors compete with it by making it 
easy for them add and remove software in Windows. This settlement 
should be the end of this judicial debacle and the final chapter in 
this unfortunate saga. I strongly urge your office to take no 
further federal action against Microsoft and encourage the states to 
follow suit. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Graham
    Vice-President Salem Automation Inc.
    C: Jesse Helms-
    Sue Myrick
    NC Senator
    NC House Representative



MTC-00025237

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government can be helpful in many areas,international trade 
and diplomacy to name a few. But I believe in the new economy it has 
bitten off more then it should chew. The software industry is a 
grotesque anomoly of companies of yesterday and today, enemies, 
allies, and then ememies once again all merged into one. They are 
fighting together against a force which is unstoppable by any 
government force this is time and progress. Every minute that passes 
the highly perishable goods of software become rotten. The wares 
must succeed or be trumpled by big business, world political powers, 
or even little children on a PC. This market is too dynamic to be 
understood and acted upon by any government. Even one as progressive 
as ours. It is a valiant effort, however inhumane, to control such 
an animal in the way that has been done. Billions of dollars of 
progress have been miss spent to defend against the possibility of 
massive controls.
    Disservice has already been done to the United States and the 
rest of the world. Is more punishment necessary?
    Jonathan Tolson
    Tulsa, OK 74105



MTC-00025238

From: Nelson Burrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:20pm
Subject: miocrtosoft. suit
    DEAR SIR :
    I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT AS PRESENTED BY 
MICROSOFT AND LET THE MARKET PLACE DECIDE WHO CAN DELIVER THE BEST 
SERVICE.
    SINCERELY;
    NELSON



MTC-00025239

From: Ray D'Andrade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been using Microsoft products for many years now. I am a 
computer consultant and I work in many different systems. Their 
products far exceed the quality of their competitors on the market. 
In addition, their products are well marketed. They made it easy for 
anyone to develop software for their platform, and that is why there 
is more third party support for their platform than any other. These 
are the reasons that they have the market share of desktop PCs. Now 
they are starting to dominate the server and backoffice market for 
the same reasons. I have used competitors products for desktop 
software and backoffice, and no other competitor comes close to the 
low cost, high functionality, and high user-friendliness, and 
customization of Microsoft's products.
    The people that I know that work there say that it is an 
excellent company to work for and it's well managed. They are model 
for other technology companies to follow. The bottom line is that 
Microsoft is a well managed company that develops some of the best 
software that is available on the market. This is why they dominate 
the market, NOT because of unfair business practices. The initial 
settlement was unfair to Microsoft because they did not do anything 
wrong. Any further pursuit of action against Microsoft is even more 
unfair. You are punishing a company for creating excellent products 
at affordable prices.
    I look forward to the day when these hearings are over and we 
can all get back to business as usual. No further action is required 
against Microsoft. The punishment Microsoft received far exceeds 
what it deserves.
    A concerned citizen and technology business owner,
    Ray D'Andrade
    Bright Network Solutions, Inc.
    Princeton, NJ



MTC-00025240

From: Gayle Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
4119 North Simpson Road
Otis Orchards, WA 99027-8721
January 12, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support the settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust Case. I am 
outraged about the amount of money and time that has been devoted 
it. This case should not have been brought in the first place. I am 
even more outraged by the handling of the case by the judiciary. I 
believe firmly that the government should simply drop the case 
against Microsoft, however, as the likelihood of this happening is 
slim, I support Microsoft's agreement to comply with the terms of 
the settlement agreement in the interest of ending this costly, 
wasteful, unwarranted, and needless litigation.
    The terms of the settlement are more, considerably more, than 
fair, just, and reasonable. Microsoft has gone far above and well 
beyond what should be expected of it. Microsoft has agreed to 
disclose to its very competitors the interfaces that are internal to 
its proprietary Windows Operating System. Similarly, Microsoft 
agreed to not enter into contracts with third parties that would 
require that third party to exclusively promote or distribute 
Microsoft products. There should be no hesitation in accepting these 
terms; no hesitation on the part of the Department of Justice; and, 
no hesitation on the part of the Court. A nation that hesitates in 
times of crisis is lost.
    And our nation is facing a crisis. I believe firmly that this 
case was brought as a result of the government's ongoing pattern of 
interfering with successful American businesses.
    Innovative companies, like Microsoft, should be free to further 
their businesses. When innovative American companies are allowed to 
freely innovate, American businesses, American consumers, and the 
American economy in general, will benefit.
    Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and, 
please, let our nation move forward.
    Sincerely yours,
    Gayle E. Green



MTC-00025241

From: Peter Ollodart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs/Madams:
    I wanted to provide comment on the settlement proposal between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice Antitrust Suit. I strongly 
believe we need to finalize this settlement and put this case behind 
us. It's been going on too long and not settling it at this point 
does nothing but drag down the economy and helps a few other non-
competitive companies whose real motive has nothing to do with the 
case. This is particularly important at a time when our justice 
system needs to focus on eliminating terrorism and making our 
country a safe place to live and work. I have always thought this 
suit was counter-productive. This suit has been a drag on the high 
tech economy brought on by our own government. It has been blown way 
out of proportion and has

[[Page 27605]]

done a lot of harm to Microsoft, the PC industry and the cottage 
industry that depends on Microsoft for their livelihood. Quite 
frankly, it hasn't helped our competitors either. The collapse of 
the .coms has clearly shown that Microsoft competitors chose a path 
that relies on over-inflated business plans that are not competitive 
in the marketplace. It was never clear to me that consumers were 
ever harmed by Microsoft. In fact, the opposite seems true, where 
more and more people are able to enjoy computing because of 
Microsoft. I believe this is a fair settlement that allows enough 
control while not choking the life out our company. I for one would 
like it just to be over.
    Regards,
    Peter Ollodart



MTC-00025242

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:20pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I think it's outrageous that MS has been allowed to bully their 
way to the top for all these many years. Their requirements to place 
their browser on the desktop at the expense of Netscape, earlier 
requirements to bundle Office with machines or not get the latest OS 
on time, the original complaints that third party developers 
wouldn't get info about the latest OS until MS had the market 
wrapped up with their own offerings are all textbook examples of MS 
promoting and protecting their monopoly in the OS and now the 
browser market.
    As much as I dislike the government sticking their noses where 
it doesn't belong, it is the only way to protect the public when the 
free market has been manipulated and subverted as it has by 
Microsoft. At the very least they should have their business highly 
regulated and possibly broken up into competing branches. I 
recommend separate companies for OS and applications. Gates, Balmer, 
et al should not be able to sit on both boards. The government 
should constantly monitor the business decisions by both companies 
(a nonvoting member on each board perhaps) and report back monthly 
to the Justice Department. As for MS offering to donate used 
machines and their software to poor schools . . . what a crock! It 
makes absolutely no sense to let them use a punishment to move into 
the education market and make even more schools dependent upon their 
software.
    Please help to repair the free market place and slow down the MS 
juggernaut!!
    Lane Hoback



MTC-00025243

From: Peter du Fosse''
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Any settlement that goes through should be eyed critically and 
not in ANY way offer any benefits to MS in terms of their barely 
slowed monopoly. Enforcing a choice for all PC-makers as well as 
encouraging compensation for companies hurt in the past by their 
monopolistic behavior would also be a good start (Netscape, IBM, 
Apple, etc.)
    This will determine the future of computing and if you want it 
to be as lackluster as it has been, with only the interesting things 
coming from companies *OTHER* than MS, you need to do open the 
market(s) to *REAL* competition again. (remember the days of 
5-7 different ``mainstream'' computer OSes? I barely 
do either!)
    Thank you for your time.
    -Peter du Fosse''
    Pete du Fosse''
    Photoshop QA
    Adobe Systems, Inc.
    345 Park Ave. W10-306
    San Jose, CA 95110
    408.536.3296



MTC-00025244

From: William Liu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:29pm
Subject: Dear Judge,
    Dear Judge,
    Microsoft is an organization that has abused it's position as a 
leader in operating systems software. I have used their products for 
over eight years and I feel that the upgrades and bugs have cost me 
and my family hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. Not only are 
the upgrades flawed themselves, most users know that they will be 
needing a newer version in only a couple of months. Something needs 
to be done to strictly monitor and regulate this problem because the 
consumers are suffering without reason. Thank you for your time
    Will Liu
    7143365923
    Orange, CA
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025246

From: Dan Dittenhafer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    While the terms of the settlement are tough, I believe they are 
reasonable and fair to all parties, and meet--or go 
beyond--the ruling by the Court of Appeals. I support the 
settlement of this case based on the current terms.
    Thank you,
    Daniel Dittenhafer
    1203 White Oak Cir.
    Melbourne, FL



MTC-00025247

From: Smith Kevin
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Re: Comments on the Proposed Microsoft Settlement Agreement
To: Renata B. Hesse, Anti-trust Division, USDOJ
Fr: Kevin A. Smith, Chairman, Arkansas Senate Technology Committee
    I just want to add my comments in favor of the Microsoft 
Settlement. I think it is the right balance between Microsoft's 
market strenght through the use of its O.S. while allowing continued 
innovation in software development. Thank you for striking a good 
and fair balance for the people of the United States, and for 
innovation in the marketplace (which also helps the US).
    Kevin A. Smith



MTC-00025248

From: den geil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen; I am strongly in favor of a settlement now of the 
Microsoft fiasco the Clinton engineered. Lets get this settled as 
currently proposed.
    Denis W. Geil, Reno, Nv



MTC-00025249

From: Justin Merkovich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I want to voice my displeasure with the apparent ``kid 
gloves'' approach to the recent Microsoft case. As a user who 
primarily employs a Macintosh I have to say that I have been on the 
receiving end of Microsoft's deplorable business practices for quite 
some time. I wish it to be known that I will be very disappointed in 
what I will view as acquiescence on the part of the Department of 
Justice should the DoJ decide not to press Microsoft on its business 
practices. How long will the government stand for the monopolistic 
position of Microsoft and the abuses that it enjoys as a result? Are 
you really afraid that the economy will collapse if you rein in this 
behemoth? Did communication in the U.S cease to exist when ``Ma 
Bell'' was split up? Now is the chance to give competitors a 
level playing field and let Microsoft stand on the merits of its 
products rather than on the free rein that the U.S. government has 
given it to destroy its competition. I don't expect that Microsoft 
will be sanctioned in any way as a result of this letter or the many 
other thousands like it that you have surely received. The 
Department of Justice has given me no reason to believe that it will 
do ANYTHING to curb Microsoft's DOCUMENTED abuses in light of the 
fact that it has had chances in the past which were not taken 
advantage of and that it appears that this opportunity has been 
squandered as well.
    In short, if Microsoft's practices are not a clear cut case of 
abuse from which the Department of ``JUSTICE'' is designed 
to protect the citizens of the United States from, then I don't know 
what constitutes abuse or what the Department of Justice is doing to 
protect me. I hope my voice can add to the din of outrage at the 
apparent bowing to the whims of Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time,
    Justin Merkovich



MTC-00025250

From: Rick Rousseau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I've been a computer professional for the last decade working 
both in systems administration as well as software engineering. I 
find the proposed Microsoft Anti-trust settlement inadequate and 
unacceptable. Nothing short of dividing Microsoft's business into 
seperate operating

[[Page 27606]]

systems and applications business units makes sense. That's not even 
taking into consideration any punitive measures that should be 
imposed on Microsoft for it's unlawful practices.
    Please consider your actions carefully.
    Rick Rousseau--computer troll
    Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a 
man's character, give him power.
    --Abraham Lincoln



MTC-00025251

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:30pm
Subject: Re: Has Your Opinion Been Counted?
    We feel that Microsoft has been un fairly picked on and now is 
the time to cease and decist any further charges. We have been very 
happy with Microsoft and thank them for all their help in the 
computer industry. So lets get off their back.
    Sincerely DAHUD80



MTC-00025252

From: colette bottinelli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing to voice my support for Microsoft in the DOJ case. 
I have grown tired and impatient with this matter, as it is clearly 
a case funded and formed by Microsoft's competitors, NOT its 
customers (as its competition has been positioning the case).
    Microsoft has been accused of overcharging its customers for 
software. I encourage you to take an audit of what the competitors 
are charging for their software (and what you get for that price). I 
believe you will find that Microsoft products are competitively 
priced, and often offer many more features/benefits to the customers 
than many other products that are on the market today.
    I would also like someone to explain to me how Microsoft can be 
tagged as a ``Monopoly''--while a huge media 
conglomerate such as Time/Warner, and AOL/Netscape (who is now known 
for ``owning'' the internet) can be allowed to join forces 
without anyone batting an eye?! It has reached the point of being 
ridiculous.
    It is a sad state of affairs this country has found itself in, 
when lawsuits become the first call to action instead of a last 
resort. Companies like AOL believe that by suing, they can keep 
competitors on the defensive and stop them from creating an offering 
that is better than their own product. AOL has market share 
dominance, and they have decided that in order to protect that 
market share they must sue a competitor rather than improve their 
product to retain/attract more customers. This is a lazy, unethical 
business practice. I think they have truly embarrassed themselves 
with this action.
    If the government allows these absurd law suits to continue, it 
will soon have on its hand a crippled industry that has not moved 
forward in innovation due to forced stagnation. What we will see is 
more American jobs lost, and foreign competitors soon owning the 
high-tech sector. It's time to put a stop to this and send a clear 
message to companies that truly do not have the customers interest 
at heart, but are using this guise to further their own selfish and 
uninspired agendas.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.



MTC-00025253

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs/Madams,
    I write regarding the ongoing question of remedies in the DoJ 
vs. Microsoft trial. I am not entirely aware of your policies on 
considering input from those outside your borders, but given that 
profound repercussions are likely to be felt from this outcome by 
industry members and citizens around the globe, I felt that it was 
imperative that I at least voice my concerns.
    It is my opinion, as an IT professional and engineer with 
computing background, that to ratify the current settlement proposal 
between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice would be 
extremely imprudent. Whatever the rationale the Department had in 
coming to this proposal, I believe it to be erroneous in that it is 
not only completely wanting in remedy for consumers, but in fact 
shackles them to further Microsoft monopoly by enshrining many of 
their monopolistic strategies in legal precedent. Specifically, the 
lack of requirement to bring the file format of Word into the public 
domain, the allowance that Microsoft verify entities as 
``legitimate businesses'' (a term as loosely and 
ambiguously interpretable as they like) and the pencil-thin 
definitions which will allow Microsoft to continue, and indeed 
expand, it's unfair monopolistic practices.
    I can only hope that this is read, and perhaps, considered.
    Very truly yours,
    Anthony Auer
    CTO, MediaShell Corporation
    Toronto, Ontario



MTC-00025254

From: Andrew Lenharth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:36pm
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 beleave the preposed settlement is 
ineffective in it's attemps to curb Microsoft's anti-competitve 
behavior.
    One of the most effective tools used by microsoft to maintain 
it's monopoly are propritary file formats used by their application. 
Without clearly, correctly, and thoughly document file formats, it 
is extremely difficult for a competitor to create a competing 
application. This is due to Microsofts monopoly in the office 
application market. Any competing product that cannot read a 
microsoft generated file or document has an extremely hard time 
establishing a foothold, since it cannot deal with the majority of 
the douments its user receives.
    There are many additional problems with Proposed Final Judgement 
that make it an ineffective tool to combat the finding of fact that 
Microsoft has anti-competitive behaviors.
    Andrew Lenharth
    Network Administrator, State of Washington
    Debian GNU/Linux Maintainer
    Everett, Washington



MTC-00025255

From: Amy Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like voice my concern regarding the government's actions 
taken against Microsoft. I appreciate the role of the government in 
acting as a ?guardian? to protect businesses from unfair practices. 
However, I do NOT support the continued use of taxpayer dollars to 
appease those competing with Microsoft. For the most part, those 
complaining about Microsoft are also huge profitable corporations. 
They are not small to mid-size businesses that are struggling to get 
by while Microsoft seeks to destroy them. I believe that if AOL or 
any of the other big complainers were forced to go through the same 
scrutiny Microsoft has had to endure for many years they would have 
failed the test. In fact, many would not remain in business. On the 
contrary, Microsoft continues to lead the way in technological 
advances and has also weathered our poor economy well. Despite 
others efforts to cause the downfall of one of our nations finest 
corporations it has risen above the controversy and moved forward. 
It is time for the federal government and remaining states involved 
in the law suits against Microsoft to move on as well.
    As a taxpayer and a voting and concerned citizen I say, ?enough 
is enough?. Microsoft has agreed to change their business practices. 
While the standards are tough they have agreed to do what has been 
declared fair and right by the courts. The law suits need to stop 
and the government needs to send the message that while protecting 
fair competition it will not discourage business and technology that 
gives our nation an edge in the world market.
    Microsoft has done far more good than bad. We need more 
companies like Microsoft to innovate. The freedom to innovate is an 
important part of our culture and one that allows individuals and 
corporations to excel domestically and abroad.
    Let Freedom Ring!
    Amy Rogers
    Amy F. Rogers
    425-451-1187 Home
    425-451-1185 Fax
    mailto:[email protected]
    CC:Jeff Rogers



MTC-00025256

From: Melanie C. Alexander
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 27607]]

Date: 1/25/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I protest the laxity of the DoJ settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust suit. I am not a software developer, but have been 
involved in applications development since 1986. I am also a student 
of history. Microsoft does not make the best operating system or 
software, but over the years, its unfair practices have beaten down 
the competition using unfair competitive practices.
    The arrogance in Microsoft's response to this suit is too 
reminiscent of the coal industry, the oil and gas industry, and 
other ?dirty? industries the trustbusters took on in the past. In 
these days of business consolidation, and multinational 
corporations, the Department of Justice should be more 
representative of the American public, rather than an 
internationally based corporation looking primarily at the corporate 
profit picture. I expect the US Department of Justice to take a 
firmer stand in protection of the rights of American consumers, and 
the free enterprise system.



MTC-00025257

From: Jolie Maki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the terms of the settlement that the DoJ, Microsoft 
and the 9 states have painstakingly worked together on. We 
desperately need to move on to the next set of pressing government 
issues and leave the business matters of software where they belong, 
in the hands of the companies that create it, not the courtrooms.
    I am truly concerned and disappointed that the ``special 
interests groups'' are taking the continued ``petty'' 
litigation approach in addressing their shortcomings, to the point 
of adnauseam. I have always felt privileged to live in a country 
that supports innovation and forward thinking for the consumers who 
choose to purchase (or not) such products. However, I believe if we 
continue this litigation path my faith in the legal process will 
diminish greatly and our countries economy will continue to suffer 
as a result.
    Please let's get on with it!
    Jolie M. Maki
    Snohomish, WA
    Registered voter- 44th Legislative District



MTC-00025258

From: Scot Ballard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Make Microsoft document every file format, and every network 
protocol so that other software vendors don't have and automatic 
disadvantage. You should also make sure that they couldn???t 
dissuade other vendors from actually using these standards.
    Do this and you will give Microsoft the right to truly innovate.
    Scot Ballard
    [email protected]
    408-974-0575
    G.C.S.S.E.



MTC-00025259

From: Bill Durham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorables,
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to add my voice to those commenting 
on the proposed Microsoft settlement.
    I have perused the Court's findings of fact, and the terms of 
the proposed settlement. While I do not pretend to be a lawyer, I am 
a software engineer who has been studying the High Technology 
industries for well over twenty years. I thus speak as a 
professional versed in technologic matters.
    To put it simply, the court not only has recognized that 
Microsoft is indeed a monopoly, but they have also found that 
Microsoft is guilty of actions illegal for such a monopoly--and 
I find the notion of allowing the convicted to dictate the very 
terms of its own punishment to be wholly illogical. In examining the 
proposed remedy, it not only represents a tiny pittance of punitive 
damage against such a massive entity, but it actually rewards the 
defendant by giving it the means to extend that monopoly further 
into a market where they previously held no such status. How, if 
such a settlement were to be upheld, could it be considered fair and 
just if the convicted really profits from the so-called 
``punishment'', while their (innocent) competitors are 
harmed?
    Furthermore, it has come to my attention that at the same time 
that Microsoft was found guilty of violating Sherman, and while 
proposed remedies have been whittled down to where they actually 
benefit the convicted, Microsoft has been continuing to thumb its 
nose, if you will, in the face of justice--and that they are 
indeed carrying out further predatory attacks against their 
competitors. The chief complaint I have of late, effecting my own 
business and career, is the acquisition, last year, of key patents 
from Silicon Graphics Inc. that could threaten the viability of the 
only real competitor to Microsoft's Direct3D Software API 
(Application Programming Interface), namely, OpenGL. If this were to 
go unchallenged, then Microsoft would be allowed to actually gain 
control of their competition in this area, and have serious 
repercussions on the entire 3D Computer Graphics industry including 
3rd party software vendors and hardware vendors and even the video 
game console market.
    This is very serious. Microsoft has already been cited for 
wantonly using the licensing of its own API's, in many areas of 
Software Development, not just 3D Graphics, as a means to control 
developers. And allowing this monopoly to now control the licensing 
of the --competing-- API's in 3D Computer Graphics means 
they now control both sides of that equation--shattering any 
hope for true competition.
    This one example of Microsoft flaunting its might--even in 
the face of having been found guilty by the Court--is an 
affront to the very ideals of justice, and would put a dire, 
oppressive strangle-hold on this industry. If Microsoft prevails in 
their own sentencing, then
    I fear they will continue to proceed unabated in their 
anticompetitive actions.
    I know that, given the current sour state of the economy, 
political ``realities'' have been suggested as an 
argument--that in this assumption we must prevent Microsoft's 
fate from impinging on the economy--nevertheless, for the good 
of our progeny and for the Rule of Law to be sustained, something 
extremely --serious-- needs to be done to drive home to 
the convicted party that their actions are to no longer be tolerated 
in a free and open market. It may still be too much to hope that a 
serious break-up would be upheld, since--as presumed by 
many--that such a remedy might actually contribute to the 
weakening of the economy--but then if that were true, then the 
very fact that the welfare of just one such corporation could have 
such an impact on the --whole-- economy means that the 
situation with that obvious monopoly should be rectified to 
--reduce-- its impact, not increase it (as Microsoft's own 
suggested remedy would cause to occur). If any one company is 
considered so vital to the whole economy, then, logically, measures 
must be taken such that we do not have ``all our eggs in that 
one basket.''
    Please, we beg you, give this considerably more thought.
    --Bill Durham,
    Independent software engineer



MTC-00025260

From: William Parradee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft settlement is a bad idea.
    It will give Microsoft an even more complete monopoly than 
Microsoft has now.
    Some families now use other operation systems and programs. This 
settlement will cause those families to buy Microsoft products in 
order to help their children in school. It may keep some children 
from using other operating systems and programs such as Mac, Linux, 
FreeBSD, Unix and others. Or any of the other lines of browsers.
    If you must order Microsoft to provide computers to schools, 
order them to install an operating system other than their 
own--and in good working order. Or perhaps install two 
operating systems so arranged that either of the two may be accessed 
and used easily. In that case, perhaps, one of the systems may be 
their own.
    William A. Parradee



MTC-00025261

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Pleas end this costly argument as soon as you can. Douglas 
Stevens



MTC-00025262

From: Tom Watson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is BAD.
    Why why why do you let the offender get away and further his 
monopoly by making

[[Page 27608]]

schools forced to use the very product that is the subject of the 
anti-trust action. It makes as much sense as letting a drug pusher 
give away crack at a school.
    NO NO NO!!
    Tom Watson I'm at home now!!
    [email protected]



MTC-00025263

From: Ronald G Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Justice Department should accept the settlement offered by 
Microsoft and rule to put an end of all lawsuits. Microsoft has used 
smart business to be at the top of the technical business. Consumers 
will not be served by continued harassment.
    Ronald G. Davis, Portland, Texas



MTC-00025264

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    Having followed the Department of Justice v. Microsoft 
proceedings from the beginning, I believe it is now time to put this 
matter behind us.
    Microsoft is undoubtedly a great American success story; any 
country would be honored and proud to have them, to reap the vast 
benefits they have showered on so many for so long, and to take 
pride in the significant contributions they have made, all over the 
world. If in fact they did wrong, they have paid the price; we, as a 
nation, have your pound of flesh, we do not need to draw blood?
    Let's get on with business now and focus our attention on much 
more important matters, such as Enron.
    Michael F. Merrick



MTC-00025265

From: Noble Eden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please allow the proposed settlement with Microsoft become 
final.
    Noble Eden, Jr.
    5710 Indian Springs
    Livingston, TX 77351



MTC-00025266

From: C F Beaver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to add my voice to the many who say that the 
agreement reached between Microsoft, the DoJ and several of the 
states is a reasonable and fair solution to the issues raised by the 
anti-trust suit.
    I believe that the suit was ill-advised from the beginning. In 
my view, the self-serving actions of Microsoft's competitors 
initiated a serious and expensive misdirection of industry and 
national resources, under the false pretense of consumer protection. 
The negative consequences of that mistaken chain of events are still 
troubling the nation's economy. Moving on now is in the nation's 
best economic interest.
    Catheirne Beaver
    325 Omni Drive
    Sparks, NV 89436



MTC-00025267

From: Shirley Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please drop this rediculas, ongoing for months & tend to 
businesses much more important. Ex: Social Security Medical 
Insurance & % of yearly increases to at least meet cost of 
living Or % given government empoyees---Feed the HUNGRY 
Americans---& stop borrowing from S.S. so you can stay in 
black!
    Microsoft has offered a generous settlement to the school 
children of the U.S .A by setting up computers for them to 
broadening their capabilities.
    Your time spent on M/S could have been spent to solve these 
problems in less time, than this has taken.
    Shirley J. Adams
    7800 Mockingbird Ln.
    Lot 189
    N. Richland Hills, Tx.76180
    P.S. Thank you for reading this.



MTC-00025268

From: Andrew Wolff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    AOL had it all and lostr it all. That's American free 
enterprise! Don't intefere with regulations and penalties.



MTC-00025269

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a computer programmer and computer systems administrator. I 
have been doing this work for nearly twenty years, and I remember 
the first Microsoft anti-trust case and the earlier IBM anti-trust 
case.
    Having established my old-codgerdom, please allow me to comment 
on the ``Proposed Final Judgement in United States v. 
Microsoft''.
    The proposed remedy has many flaws in the details, but more 
importantly, some basic shortcomings:
    1) Inadequate allowance is made for the fact that Microsoft is a 
serial, unrepentant lawbreaker. Far too much is given over to 
Microsoft's discretion. For instance, they may withold critical 
interoperability information if that information 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''. (III.J.1)
    Microsoft is not only technically able to engineer gratuituous 
dependencies on such exempted APIs, but apparently is the party that 
decides whether such a dependency exists in the first place. 
Microsoft should never be in the position of interpreting any part 
of the final judgement. A special master or other external agency 
should make any interpretation.
    Microsoft has earned a presumption of bad faith.
    2) No explicit provision is made for competitors to Microsoft 
that are not, strictly speaking, businesses. The Wine project 
(http://www.winehq.com) and the Samba project (http://www.samba.org/
samba/samba.html) are volunteer efforts that produce software that 
serves some people, for some purposes as an alternative to 
Microsoft. The volunteers on these projects do this by reading the 
documented API, performing experiments and determining the real API. 
Then they implement as much of that API as they can.
    It is true that such an organization often has some corporate 
assistance, but the project itself is not structured as a business 
and so would fail to ``meet[s] reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business''. (III.J.2.c)
    3) No provision is made for lowering the user's barrier to 
migration. Users may well have significant time and effort invested 
in documents in proprietary Microsoft formats. Microsoft should be 
forced to open up these formats, so that other vendors may produce 
fully compatible (at the file level) products, allowing users to 
move their own work product to other platforms, should they so 
desire.
    --- Sincerely,
    Rodger Hendricks
    Sr. Systems Programmer,
    AT/CIRCA, Univ of Florida
    E520 CSE
    P.O. Box 116140
    Gainesville, FL 32611-6140
    (352) 392-2007



MTC-00025270

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:41pm
Subject: proposed settlement
    Any non substantive penalty against Microsoft is a strong 
reinforcement for corporate malfeasance. By substantive I mean a 
fine of around 50% of Microsoft's net worth or breaking the company 
into small enough units that it no longer has the power to rent 
congress. Richard Frank



MTC-00025271

From: Brian Schack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Don't let Microsoft get away with everything they have done to 
put other companies out of business unfairly and strengthen their 
monopoly.



MTC-00025272

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have a strong feeling that the Sherman Act, proposed long 
before the software industry was established, and tailored for the 
traditional business is a wrong vehicle for delivering justice in 
this particular case. Certain software industry specific merits

[[Page 27609]]

were completely disregarded by the case originators:
    1. Software industry in the US and the entire world is driven by 
de-facto standards. Large number of leaders (or standard 
establishing companies) creates obstacles for the industry 
advancement and in effect harms the consumer. I still remember times 
when there where dozens of operating systems at the market and mere 
moving data from one computer to another was therefore a hard 
problem to solve. This situation simply had to evolve into just a 
few standard-establishing companies. I personally welcome MS as a 
leader in software standards since it is employing the most 
brilliant minds in the software industry today.
    2. With all due respect, the software industry can not be ruled 
by today's judiciary system. They just live in different dimensions. 
The modern software development is moving in much faster pace, thus 
making most judiciary rulings obsolete by the time they gets 
accepted. See for yourself: software industry in general and 
Microsoft as a company today are very different from what they where 
back in 1998 when this all started. That's why it is so hard to 
propose remedies in this case. The final remedies are for the wrong 
cause and for the wrong times.
    3. The product bundling term is very different in today's 
software that is constantly moving to the component-based 
architecture. All known operating systems have certain basic 
components (like Web browser). Sun Solaris, Mac OS and Unix are not 
exceptions. It's like blaming a car maker for bundling the engine 
with a car.
    4. In this particular case the complaint came not from consumers 
and/or consumer advocates, but rather from the losing competition. I 
don?t think the industry should create the precedent when a less 
successful company can sue the more successful one for loosing the 
battle. My personal impression is that Netscape Communications has 
to blame itself for loosing the browsers war. They were enjoying 
their easy success for too long while their product quality and 
feature set was deteriorating compared to the competition.
    I am sure that the common interest today is finishing this 
process and all copycats resulting from it. More than enough 
taxpayer's dollars have been already wasted without any sensible 
effect.
    Sincerely,
    Victor L. Havin
    Software Specialist.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025273

From: Glenn Sebolt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I believe the terms outlined by the current agreement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice are adequate to address the 
Anti-Trust concerns by all parties.
    As an end user, and as an Information Technology professional I 
have used and will continue to use, support and recommend Microsoft 
products to my clients. This includes Operating Systems as well as 
Windows, Apple Office Applications and Internet Browsers. I do 
believe that Microsoft has the best product, support and pricing on 
the market and in that I see tremendous value to me and my clients 
as consumers. I do view the continued pursuit of additional 
sanctions against Microsoft as productive in any way, and I don't 
see how additional value would be derived from the additional 
penalties.
    I would hope all parties can bring this matter to a final 
resolution in a expedient manner.
    Thank You,
    Glenn Sebolt
    1234 28th Street SE
    Cedar Rapids, IA 52403
    [email protected]



MTC-00025274

From: Jon Doe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I consider my computer ``my tool''. I paid for it, and 
I should be able to use it in any way I like provied that I do not 
use it to break any laws. If I were to buy a hammer, nobody would 
tell me that I could only hit nails with it. No one would say, 
``You can't use YOUR hammer as a nutcracker.''
    Unfortunately, my computer is useless without an Operationg 
System. I have to run Windows because some of my programs are not 
available for other OSes(Thanks to the monopoly). Frankly, Windows 
is a flawed operation system, and I would rather not use it because 
it occationaly restricts my productivity. For this reason, I am 
strongly opposed to any practice(Both technical sabotage and 
monopoly like practices) that discourages the development of 
software that works with or in place of Windows.
    In its current form, I believe the Proposed Final Judgement is 
full of loopholes that will continue to let Microsoft exercise a 
monopoly on the computer industry. The Windows OS must not be 
allowed to impair the abilities of other software or operating 
systems. Furthermore, Microsoft should be forced to take further 
steps to make it easier for developers to create products designed 
for Windows in order to insure a free market economy.
    In addition, I strongly recommend an addition to the settlement 
which prohibits Microsoft from requiring any sort on internet access 
or logging onto any Microsoft network to gain full use of Windows.
    In other words, Windows should be a stand alone product that 
does not need to connect to the net to gain functionality. Some 
people do not have internet connections to make this possible and 
some would prefer not to get such a connection. I believe that this 
part should be a temporary stipulation to be reviewed in about five 
years. At which point a non-biases committee should decide whether 
to lift the sanction in order to accomodate new technology.



MTC-00025276

From: Brian Freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    this is a bad idea!!!!!!!!



MTC-00025277

From: Holden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please settle this thing and let it go. It is already costing 
the consumer too much money.
    Much more than we can afford. I truly beleive that this started 
the economic downturn. If you want to go after a monopoly, why don't 
you get rid of the post office? It will break us all.
    Mr. and Mrs. Robert s. Holden
    Let go and let God



MTC-00025278

From: Chad Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is terrible. In particular, 
III(J)(2) should not restrict distributions to 
``businesses''.
    The only real potential for competition to Microsoft comes from 
organizations that are too informal (and not-for-profit!) to be 
called businesses. Other non-business orgs (like the Government) 
should not be excluded, either. Require MSFT to publish (on an 
unrestricted website!) the same API documen- tation that their 
internal application developers have.
    Chad Miller 
    



MTC-00025279

From: Woynarowski, Jan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    January 24, 2002
    I would like to express my concern regarding the obstacles to 
the final settlement in the Microsoft case. It is my deepest belief, 
that the general public and the economy of our country will benefit 
from the expedite finalization of this case. Microsoft is a 
successful company that in not insignificant way has contributed to 
the computer revolution. I feel that attempts to restrict the 
further growth of Microsoft serve primarily a very narrow segment of 
our society that comprises those of Microsoft competitors who are 
not innovative enough but still would like to impose their un-
competitive products on the public and collect un-deserved profits. 
Being a cancer research scientist, I need efficient software and 
powerful computers for all aspects of my professional activities. I 
see very acutely, that it was Microsoft, who has brought us the 
badly needed software tools at reasonable prices. This in turn has 
precipitated the never-ending progression in computer hardware power 
and the development of new scientific instruments that enormously 
increased our capacity and accelerated biomedically-oriented 
research. Microsoft has become pseudo-``monopolist'' only 
because its customers voted for its products with their wallets, 
like I did. Having restricted funds for research, coming in part

[[Page 27610]]

from taxpayers, it was always my concern to stretch my research 
dollars by buying quality software, both operating systems and 
applications. With my purchases, I have voted for innovation and 
efficiency. Microsoft has responded to my needs over the years in 
terms of both quality and affordability.
    My cancer research laboratory is not an exception. In thousands 
of laboratories, Microsoft products contribute to the ongoing 
biological revolution that is already benefiting our lives. Let 
Microsoft continue to innovate in their specialty, software, because 
their today's innovations will give us scientist tomorrow new 
cutting edge tools. Let them continue to develop comprehensive 
operating systems that will work as smoothly as possible with their 
application software, because this will save us all money and will 
increase our efficiency and productivity. Let them donate computers 
to schools. It will not strengthen Microsoft ``monopoly'' 
. To the contrary--some of these kids will get a chance to 
become Microsoft competitors--and this will benefit all of us.
    I feel that it is in the best interest of American science and 
American society that the infamous Microsoft case is finally closed 
according to the terms of the agreed settlement. I urge you to 
accelerate your efforts in that direction.
    With regards,
    Jan M. Woynarowski, Ph.D.
    Associate Professor, Molecular Pharmacology
    Cancer Therapy and Research Center
    Institute for Drug Development
    and
    University of Texas Health Science Center
    Department of Radiation Oncology
    14960 Omicron Dr.
    San Antonio, TX 78245
    Phone 210-677-3832 Fax 210-677-0058
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Jan M. Woynarowski, Ph.D.
    Associate Professor, Molecular Pharmacology
    Cancer Therapy and Research Center
    Institute for Drug Development
    and
    University of Texas Health Science Center
    Department of Radiation Oncology
    14960 Omicron Dr.
    San Antonio, TX 78245
    Phone 210-677-3832 Fax 210-677-0058
    E-mail: [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025280

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft is fair and 
appropriate. The status has been in limbo long enough and the 
industry has been damaged enough by the uncertainty of the outcome. 
President Bush has advocated a quick resolve to this in the interest 
of the U.S. economy as a whole, and I personally agree with him 
since I, along with all the other stockholders of tech stocks, have 
lost a lot of my retirement savings during the time it has taken to 
stabilize the market with a just resolution. Please do not delay any 
further to accept the agreement reached by Microsoft, the Department 
of Justice, and nine states, which in my opinion is tough but fair 
to all parties. I need to regain confidence in the American economy 
and in my investment portfolio.
    Sincerely, Marie Allen Smith, Ed. D. Retired Educator



MTC-00025281

From: Margaret Ho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to give my opinion of the Microsoft settlement with the 
government: let the settlement stand and and get the other nine 
states in on the settlement. Haven't we had enough litigation 
already? Where is the free market? If Microsoft make inferior 
products, it would have been left behind. If Microsoft's competitors 
can't keep up, they need to think of other products or more 
innovations, not run to big government to pull back Microsoft. We 
certainly do not need Congress to tell people what to buy or what 
services to use. Why should Microsoft be punished for success??? The 
marketplace should level the playing field, not politicans who know 
little of the details of the workings of business. Microsoft is not 
the Standard Oil of New Jersey; Microsoft grew big and strong on its 
own without buying and cobbling together its parts. Does the 
government want to distract Microsoft with lawsuit after lawsuit so 
it will fall back with products and innovation (like with IBM years 
ago), thereby leveling the playing field for its competitors? Let 
the settlement put an end to this unfair hounding of Microsoft, and 
the marketplace will take care of business. I really like and use my 
Microsoft programs and other products every day--I don't want 
my computer life interrupted! Thanks for listening.



MTC-00025282

From: rhad@rhad-linux@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:50pm
Subject: comment on MS settlement
FROM: Hanskarl Borck
2802 W. Bay Area #1704
Webster, TX, 77598
TO: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To the United States Department of Justice:
    I am writing in response to the proposed settlement to the 
Microsoft Antitrust Case. This matter has become quite important to 
me in the past several years as a student at the University of 
Houston, and an active computer user and enthusiast. Within this 
letter I will first explain why Microsoft must be punished more 
severely than the settlement proposes. Then I will outline what I 
consider to be a more fitting settlement.
    The Problem with Microsoft
    The primary reason that I believe in punishing Microsoft more 
severely revolves round their blatantly unfair actions in an 
extremely competitive market. For instance, I can easily cite their 
purely anti-competitive deals with OEM computer manufacturers, or 
the obvious bundling of Internet Explorer with the OS purely to 
dominate the browser market.-- However, my primary concern 
tends to lie not with these problems as much as their unwillingness 
to adapt to current computer standards and open up their most common 
APIs and document formats.-- It is obvious that Microsoft 
totally dominates the computer industry.-- Through this 
dominance, its document formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt etc.) have become 
increasingly used throughout the corporate and personal 
world.-- However, Microsoft won?t let anyone else play. The 
formats utilized by these programs are unreleased and a closely 
guarded trade secret.-- More importantly, Microsoft has 
released more and more of their communications protocols to the 
Internet world without supplying sufficient data to let other 
systems communicate with them.-- They blatantly ignore current 
standards and introduce intentional bastardizations solely to 
leverage their monopoly further.-- For instance, Internet 
Explorer contains intentional problems with properly reading and 
displaying normal HTML as defined in various standards 
papers.-- However, rather than being held responsible for this 
?bug?, Microsoft implied that the web sites were responsible 
instead.-- As the public became further and further entrenched 
in Internet Explorer (via the OEM deals and bundling aforementioned) 
web designers were forced to ?correct? their good code to display 
properly on Internet Explorer, leaving people not using Internet 
Explorer wondering why all of the sudden their standards-conforming 
browsers no longer worked.
    There are hundreds of other examples like that one, many of them 
much more important. Specifically, with the possible emergence of 
Microsoft's .NET plan, normal operation under the web, already 
heavily drugged by Microsoft, would become almost inherently 
Microsoft based.-- The way I read it, .NET creates a one-time 
access point for all web communication.-- You login a .NET 
server, and then grab the appropriate information to complete online 
transactions, downloads, password completion, maybe even web-site 
access.-- Does anyone honestly think such unbelievable control 
would be used fairly by Microsoft?-- Does anyone even think 
that a different operating system would be allowed to login without 
deliberate loss of functionality, if it could login at all?



MTC--00025282--0002

    In summary, Microsoft has abused its monopoly and stifled 
competition via three prime methods:
    1) OEM deals which lock out the competition.
    2) Increased bundling of their products with the Windows OS.
    3) Releasing file formats, APIs, and communication protocols in 
proprietary formats.
    The Ideal Solution
    Contrary to a large majority of people like me, I do not believe 
that breaking up the company would result in any productive fix

[[Page 27611]]

for the Microsoft monopoly.-- Rather, I would stress that there 
are two things that must happen.
    1) Microsoft must stop making deals with OEM vendors that 
disallow competition, or punishing those vendors that refuse to 
capitulate via increased fees or withholdings.
    2) Microsoft must release its most common formats, communication 
protocols and APIs to the public.
    With regards to 1), the DOJ settlement has outlined a good set 
of regulations except the restriction that non-MS middleware must 
either not display a user interface or should display a user 
interface similar to the corresponding MS product. This forces 
competing software vendors to imitate Microsoft's lead in these 
product lines. To the user then, it seems that Microsoft is the only 
innovator and the other vendors are merely copying. There should be 
no restrictions on competing middleware products. The desktop 
configuration should be entirely up to the OEM.
    However, objective 2) is addressed by the settlement but fails 
in a huge way. Ideally I hope to see after the settlement this type 
of scenario:
    Jon Doe is not a rich man, but he is not poor either.-- He 
desires to buy a computer for his family, and so he heads to the 
store.-- His first option is a computer with the Microsoft 
Windows OS.-- Jon is familiar with it, as he has used it before 
at his workplace, but he was unaware of the cost, which is much more 
than he can afford. Upon a closer examination, he realizes that the 
Windows computer forces you to buy many other bundled pieces of 
software as well; an office suite, a firewall, a CD-burning program, 
a paint program, and more.-- Reading a little more, J0n als0 
discovers that he cannot install any of the programs on another 
machine in his house because he is only ?renting? the software, and 
must pay Microsoft again in order to use it again.-- 
Uncomfortable with such limited control over what he pays for, Jon 
moves further down the aisle to the Linux computer section, which 
has lower prices. You can buy either a stripped down low cost 
version, or an intensely modified and software heavy version. Better 
yet, the cost for the software is next to free, and it can be 
reinstalled as much as you want. Here is the kicker for Jon:-- 
And it will fully support standard Windows formats and protocols to 
ensure proper communication in a Windows network. Jon could also 
look at the Apple section; it too states full computability with the 
common Windows machines found on the Internet.



MTC-00025282--0003

    What I wrote above cannot happen today since the computer and 
Internet world has been enveloped in Microsoft products. No 
competition can truly occur until it does happen. Obviously, if 
these formats and protocols were opened, Microsoft would be forced 
to lower their prices (finally), and perhaps even offer computer 
manufacturers a less-bundled operating system. This is the 
key.-- Microsoft in my mind can bundle as much as they want. It 
drives the price up, and increases complexity.-- However, if 
the competition can compete in a Microsoft dominated Internet and 
computer world, the lower costs and increased options will force 
Microsoft to adapt in ways that benefit the consumer.-- In 
other words, Microsoft can certainly attempt to sell as much as they 
want.-- No one can deny that their products are useful and, 
while lacking stability and security, are fairly user-
friendly.-- At the moment though, Microsoft has managed to 
become the only option. They no longer have to price competitively, 
or market their products based on performance.-- They have 
managed to make alternatives intentionally less functional from a 
Windows perspective. It is the car equivalent of Microsoft supplying 
cars that run best on their own proprietary gasoline.-- Once 
they achieve some market dominance, carmakers and gasoline 
manufactures are suddenly in deep trouble when it comes to breaking 
into the market.-- I believe that it is these proprietary 
formats and protocols that are really to blame in Microsoft's 
monopoly abuse.-- In order to promote fair competition, these 
must be made open, and not just to some select groups as the 
settlement foolishly states.-- Open to the General 
Public.-- The people forced to maintain Microsoft products, and 
use their software are not just these select vendors and groups. 
More importantly, these binary formats and protocols cannot be seen 
as intellectual property since Microsoft has managed to become such 
a dominant player.-- They are now the de facto standard.
    There are many other things about the settlement I think could 
be made more friendly to the computer industry and software 
professionals Microsoft has continually abused.-- However, I 
truly feel that the majority of these discrepancies are unimportant 
when compared to the necessity of opening the Microsoft APIs, file 
formats, and communication protocols.-- This freedom to expand 
on the now (albeit unlawfully) standard Microsoft product-line will 
allow the industry as a whole to slowly catch-up to Microsoft in the 
computing sector.-- This competition and increased innovation 
will naturally spur Microsoft to better products as well, all 
benefiting the consumer.-- And that is the goal right?
    To benefit the consumer.
    Sincerely,
    Hanskarl Borck



MTC-00025282--0004

E-Mail: rhad 
Date: 25-Jan-02  Time: 17:54:36 This message was sent by XFMail



MTC-00025282--0005



MTC-00025283

From: mike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I must strenuously object to the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. It is clear that Microsoft is not phased by your actions 
as they continue, even now the very activities of which they have 
been convicted. In the past several weeks they have filed a 
frivolous lawsuit against Lindows Inc. in an attempt to use their 
vast wealth to bankrupt a competitor. Further, even with action 
hanging over their heads, they released an operating system with yet 
more forced hooks in it, and are branching out into the internet 
infrastructure (.net) and the game box (xbox) arenas. Earlier this 
week they announced they would extend the capabilities of the xbox 
to include web browsing, e-mail and other computer related 
functions. This is clearly a first step (well not really a first 
step, remember the PC99 standard) to break into the computer 
manufacturing business. Microsoft producing computers would place 
the final nail into the coffin of choice for PC owners.
    On the issue of a breakup, I don't think this is a good idea. I 
believe leaving Microsoft intact and compelling them to abide by the 
additional constraints of being a monopoly would be more effective. 
A much better solution would be to restrict their exercise of their 
software patents, and prohibit further patent action. Along with 
this a true opening of their file formats and apis would be in 
order. A breakup would leave 2 or more companies, unencumbered with 
the stigma of monopoly, but with the same majority stockholders and 
management team. This would almost incurs in the realm of a reward 
for wrong doing. If a breakup were to be effective it would need to 
completely disassociate the resulting companies. More importantly 
the development tools division would have to be spun off. With the 
development tools being created by an autonomous company, the 
stranglehold that Microsoft holds on the industry may be broken. No 
more would there be apis visible only to the developers that create 
Microsoft operating systems and applications. And perhaps the steady 
decline of useful documentation for the development tools would come 
to an end.
    Thank you for your attention in this matter.
    Michael G. Grello
    Principal Programmer
    MaranaTha Software



MTC-00025284

From: GTEmail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    GlacierDear Sir:
    I support the settlement agreed to by both parties and I believe 
efforts to modify the settlement terms are miss-guided.
    Please proceed with the settlement on the terms now proffered 
and accepted. I believe this action will benefit all interested 
parties.
    Sincerely,
    Mark K. Young



MTC-00025285

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:48pm
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

[[Page 27612]]

already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; 
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than 
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors, 
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the 
computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of 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.H. Pendle
    119 Phyllis Ct.
    Vallejo, CA 94590-8118



MTC-00025286

From: Frederick A Farley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    We think this is gone far enough! To do further litigation would 
only cost more money to the taxpayers and muddy the waters more yet 
to no avail. We think that Microsoft has paid enough. Lets let them 
get on with their business of producing quality equipment and 
programs to better serve the public. Thank You
    Loralee & Frederick Farley



MTC-00025287

From: Ron Smith MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:51pm
Subject: My Comments
    I don't have a clue how the government can prosecute and win the 
antitrust suit against Microsoft, and then give them back every 
monopolizing area they already had.
    I'm an Apple Macintosh user, so I'm very familiar with 
Microsoft's attitude toward competition.
    The agreement stinks and smacks of someone in the government 
being paid off.
    This settlement is corrupt!
    Ron Smith, MD



MTC-00025288

From: VISHNU A GOKHALE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:52pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement.''
The Justice Department
Washington D C
    Dear Sirs,
    Please accept the settlement with Microsoft.
    I want to let you know that consumer interests have been well 
served, and the time to end this costly and damaging litigation has 
come. Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few 
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest bigwigs. Not one 
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Vin Gokhale
    1/25/02



MTC-00025289

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge,
    It is my view that the proposed final judgment in the U.S. vs. 
Microsoft antitrust suit is seriously flawed.
    Microsoft is a convicted monopolist who has run afoul of this 
country's antitrust laws, making many billions of dollars in the 
process. This proposed settlement would allow the company to keep 
almost all of these illegal profits.
    I am also concerned that there are no provisions in this 
proposed settlement to prohibit this monopolist from continuing to 
engage in anticompetitive activities. Allowing Microsoft to police 
itself is no solution, and we certainly don't need a government-
mandated monopoly.
    I urge you to reject the proposed final judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Anita Brubaker
    1502 Esbenshade Road
    Lancaster, PA 17601
    (717) 295-7374



MTC-00025290

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:52pm
Subject: I am against these bureacratic lobbyiests and let's get on 
with the best
    I am against these bureacratic lobbyiests and let's get on with 
the best for all people involved. This has gone on far enough and it 
is time to do what is right and ethical. I am tired of this 
political Wrangeling. Where are the people who were sent to 
Washington for the good of the voters? Get off of your fat duffs and 
let's be truthful for once. For shame!!!!!
    Sincerely,
    Douglas Sargeant



MTC-00025291

From: Michael Musty
To: DOJ vs. Microsoft
Date: 1/25/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to state my opinion of this settlement issue. 
Firstly, I am a computer consultant and programmer and I use a 
variety of software languages and platforms. My feeling is that 
Microsoft has succeeded in the market place because the quality of 
their software products is far superior to any of the other software 
vendors. They know how to build software very well. And they deserve 
their position in the market. I buy their products because I know 
they will treat me right. You can't say that about Netscape or alot 
of the other software vendors.
    However I do not know much about the inner business strategies 
and behaviors of the MBAs on their non-technical staffs, so I can't 
speak about them. I do know, from a technical point of view, they 
put out a far superior product than netscape and the other software 
vendors. Please don't restrict their ability to continue producing 
software the way they do!
    Michael Musty
    Datapattern Inc
    Minneapolis, MN



MTC-00025292

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do NOT feel comfortable with this settlement. Please do not 
make it easier for Microsoft to tighten its strangle hold on the 
American people. Every day I try to convince someone else to try an 
operating system besides windows. Linux, BeOS, or MacOS are all good 
choices. They tell me ``Why switch when I know that Microsoft 
will bully any other competitor out of the way?''
    I don't have an answer for them right now. When I see the 
direction this case is going, I cant argue with them on that point. 
Why try to evangelize when Microsoft is above the law?
    Jason Lamb
    Hardware Engineer



MTC-00025293

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I approve the proposed settlement in the case between Microsoft, 
the federal government, and nine states.
    -Ravi
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025294

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. Microsoft has made it abundantly clear over the years 
that it will willingly cross the line into monopolistic behavior 
whenever it pleases.
    The only feasible remedy to this situation is to break the 
company into multiple new companies that compete directly. It is not 
enough to break Microsoft into one operating system company and one 
applications company, as this would apparently have the effect of 
spawning two new monopolists in separate markets.
    By the way, I am a Microsoft stockholder and have been for many 
years. As I stockholder, I can and should ordinarily expect the 
officers of a company to maximize profits. Given the virtual 
monopoly Microsoft enjoys in the operating system market, however, 
we can conclude from basic economic theory that Microsoft will not 
be maximizing profit unless it restricts output below the 
(competitive market) equilibrium price, thus restricting sales below 
the welfare-maximizing level. As this is harmful to the public 
welfare, I hereby sincerely ask that you limit the returns of 
stockholders such as myself by ending the monopolistic practices of 
Microsoft once and for all. I have no wish to profit from harm to 
the public.
    Respectfully,
    Richard Bradford
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa



MTC-00025295

From: Whitney Tracy

[[Page 27613]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    It is my opinion that the currently proposed settlement with 
Microsoft is INADEQUATE and IRRATIONAL. I believe that a fair 
settlement should include a hefty amount of cash ($1 billion+) and 
legal restrictions on Microsoft's future business developments.
    Sincerely,
    Whitney A. Tracy
    Austin, TX
    A concerned US citizen.



MTC-00025296

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement offers a 
reasonable compromise that will enhance the ability of seniors and 
all Americans to access the internet and use innovative software 
products to make their computer experience easier and more 
enjoyable.
    I strongly urge the Justice Department to adopt this settlement 
and end the prolonged litigation and high costs to the government of 
this procedure.
    I am offering these comments under current law (known as the 
Tunney Act) which allows public comment on the proposed settlement 
up until January 28th.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Elmer F. Baron
    24670 S.W. Old Hwy 99 W.
    Sherwood, OR. 97140
    [email protected]



MTC-00025297

From: Jeff Jackowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Final Judgement in the case United States v. 
Microsoft will not prevent Microsoft from continuing anit-
competetive practices. The PFJ has a number of loopholes that will 
allow Microsoft the latitude for monopolistic actions, and Microsoft 
has already proven that it can find and exploit such loopholes.
    The loopholes include:
    * Narrow definition for API
    * Narrow definition for Middleware
    * New Windows operating systems are not covered by restrictions
    * Per-processor licensing allowed to continue for enterprises
    * Allows restrictions against the creation of Windows compatible 
systems
    * Allows discrimination against Open Source software
    These loopholes must be corrected if the anti-trust case against 
Microsoft is to have its intended effect of restoring competition to 
the market.
    Jeff Jackowski
    110A Northington Place
    Cary, NC 27513



MTC-00025298

From: Brian Beattie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Settlement in this case, is severly flawed, 
propable fataly so.
    Microsoft has arguably held a monoply in the PC OS market since 
1990 and has used this fact to disadvatage and destroy competitors. 
This has clearly harmed consumers, by limiting there options. It is 
difficult to guess as to what developments never say the light of 
day due the chilling effect of Microsoft actions. That a number of 
products were not allowed to compete fairly in the marketplace is 
clear.
    Microsofts actions since the inital verdict nakes it clear that 
Microsoft is unlikely to act lawfully in the future, nor to allow 
competition to return to the marketplace.



MTC-00025299

From: Maia, Joe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph P. Maia
15 Brook Drive
Burlington, NJ 08016
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    The following comments pertain to the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgement, 6 Nov 2001 (``Revised Judgement'') for the 
antitrust case against Microsoft (``MS'').
    I will also refer to the Plaintiff Litigating States'' 
Remedial Proposals, 7 Dec 2001 (``Alternate Judgement'').
    I am a senior software engineer with over 23 years experience in 
the software development industry. I have worked as both an employee 
and as a consultant. I currently work for a major software systems 
development firm in the defense industry.
    Over the course of my career I have worked on development 
projects for both the defense and commercial industries, designing 
and developing both system and application software. And as one 
would expect, over the years I have used a variety of operating 
systems and programming languages. Most recently I have been 
developing applications using the Java programming language and 
runtime system.
    The depth and breadth of my experience in the software 
development industry puts me in a position where my comments may 
provide additional insight into evaluating the merits of the Revised 
Judgement. A judgement which I characterize as woefully inadequate. 
First and foremost, I am deeply disappointed at the decision of the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) not to pursue any breakup of MS. I was 
also disappointed when Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's remedy was 
announced. I feel that MS should be split into at least four 
companies: operating systems, office products, enterprise/server 
products, and consumer products. However, upon reading the details 
of that remedy, I felt it was the absolute minimum which must be 
done if there is to be any hope of a successful remedy which will 
not require continued litigation further down the road. Baring a 
structural remedy, many of the conduct-only remedies should be 
designed as if MS were being broken up, as this in many ways is the 
heart of the problem--MS controls both the operating system 
(``OS'') and many important applications, and has not 
hesitated to pursue illegal means to use this to their advantage. 
Since the possibility of a breakup appears moot, the remaining 
comments deal specifically with the Revised Judgement.
    Since my expertise is in the area of software development and 
not marketing, my comments will deal primarily with the needs of the 
software development community and the impact that might have on 
consumers.
    A FEW DEFINITIONS
    There are a couple of terms which the press seem to always get 
wrong, or to use interchangeably, when only one term is correct. 
These terms are used when discussing how a product or application 
may be included in a supporting OS. ``Bundled Product'' A 
bundled product is one which is simply ``dropped into'' an 
OS. Its files are completely separate from any OS files. If the 
product is removed from the OS, it does not affect the continued 
operation of the OS or of any other application (barring the 
possibility of unintentional file naming conflicts where certain 
definition files may have to go into common locations).
    ``Integrated Product'' An integrated product on the 
other hand is tied into OS files in one way or another (also called 
``co- mingling of code'') so that you cannot remove the 
product without adversely affecting the operation of the OS and 
possibly other applications. An ``Integrated Product'' is 
quite different from functionality which appears 
``integrated''--the latter referring to how seamless 
the interface feels to the user. ``Plug-in''. A plug-in 
architecture or API allows for the addition of added functionality 
to an application or OS through a standardized interface. This may 
or may not include additional top-level windows, or any new user 
interface at all. For example: this might allow third-party 
additions to a graphics editing program which would include 
additional windows, or it could also define a way for an OS to allow 
the OS developer or any third party developer to provide 
``integrated'' functionality without undue benefit to the 
OS developer and without undue bias against any third parties (such 
as HTML interpreters, or digital video format interpreters).
    THE HOUSE THAT MICROSOFT BUILT
    I have found that comparing the software development industry to 
the housing construction industry helps to clarify the issues at 
hand and will help to point out the problems I see with the Revised 
Judgement.
    The computer OS is very similar to a newly constructed house 
when you consider what should or should not be included with it. 
Both provide a framework and a collection of basic services for you 
to use with all the personal belongings you own. In the new home you 
have standardized outlets, pre-wired phone lines, a central air/heat 
unit, built in kitchen appliances, possibly pre-wired cable TV 
lines, built-in connections for laundry washer and dryer, a water 
tap for refrigerators which make their own ice cubes, and possibly 
other items as well.

[[Page 27614]]

    The computer OS also provides a number of services and built-in 
applications for basic operations.
    The big difference between the two industries is that in the 
housing construction industry all your built-in appliances, 
electrical service, etc, are all standardized and publicly known 
(any built-in appliance can be replaced with another appliance from 
any manufacturer)--but in the software development industry, 
the primary OS, the one with a 95% share of the desktop market, has 
a stranglehold on the industry because of proprietary built-in 
products (integrated products) and hidden APIs.
    The final remedy should address this inequity so the OS is more 
like an empty new house. This is not to suggest that the OS must be 
laid bare, but due consideration should be given to the effect on 
the software development industry as well as consumer choice, if 
certain products are allowed to be included in an OS without some 
sort of limitations on how the product or capability is added.
    The only equitable way to guarantee an even playing field is to 
simply not allow any integrated products in a monopoly OS.
    Bundled products and plug-ins should be allowed, but only if 
they can be completely removed and/or replaced with competing third-
party products, without restraint, by either hardware manufacturers/
resellers or consumers.
    If MS were in the housing construction industry, they would want 
to sell you a furnished house filled with MS-branded appliances and 
furniture--and so constructed that you would not be able to 
replace any built-in product with a non-MS product. What is even 
worse, MS's new licensing policy would be the equivalent of only 
renting new houses to its customers!
    The next few sections detail specific changes and additions to 
the Revised Judgement which are necessary if there is any hope at 
all of providing equity to third-party software developers, a 
Technical Committee with the ability to actually be effective, and 
true choice for consumers.
    THE NEEDS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS
    For software developers, the OS is a commodity which drives all 
product development. Without all-inclusive and detailed information 
about the services available in the OS, developers cannot develop 
viable products for that OS. And if one group of developers is given 
more complete information than other groups, then the more informed 
developers will produce the more compatible, the more 
``integrated'' (i.e.: more seamless interface), and the 
more full- functioned product. In a monopoly environment, it is even 
more important than ever to guarantee the equal distribution of 
detailed documentation about the controlling OS as well as included 
Middleware products.
    First and foremost, there can be no time limits on requirements 
that MS divulge full documentation on all existing and new APIs, or 
upcoming changes to existing APIs, to non-MS developers. Otherwise, 
the day after the Judgement expires, MS could very easily make a few 
minor changes to their APIs and not publicize them--and we 
would be right back where we are today. In fact, all of these 
comments pertaining to software developers-- as well as the 
comments below discussing consumer choice-- should have no time 
limits!
    The Revised Judgement is unfair to non-MS developers in allowing 
MS to not divulge changes to their APIs until the ``last major 
beta''. MS should be required to announce all proposed changes 
to APIs in the form of a ``White Paper'' at the time the 
change is proposed. As each new version of an API is defined or 
necessary changes to an API are decided upon, MS should be required 
to announce the new API description. And MS should be required to 
announce, as accurately as possible, the timeline MS plans for 
formal release of the modified API. Any ``early-release'' 
versions of API libraries made available to MS developers must also 
be made available to non-MS developers. Any delay in informing non-
MS developers of upcoming changes to APIs is an unfair advantage to 
MS developers. There can be no limitation on who can see this 
documentation-- this information must be available to any 
interested party without restriction, either via published books at 
reasonable prices and/or via freely available web pages on the 
Internet.
    The wording of the Revised Judgement pertaining to the 
definition of ``documentation'' leaves much to be desired. 
I believe MS can interpret this to mean they can keep the same level 
of documentation they current have--which is to say the 
omission of certain API details as to give MS developers the 
advantage over non-MS developers. The wording in the Alternate 
Judgement does a better job of describing what is needed. There can 
be no question that a full and complete detailed description of all 
APIs necessary for an developer to develop any kind of software to 
run on any MS OS or Middleware product be available (preferably on 
the web) for any developer to reference. I emphasize that ANY MS OS 
or Middleware product be included in this requirement--this 
should include handheld devices, new devices (such as the X-Box), 
and server-side OSs and Middleware.
    The level of detail and completeness should be sufficient so 
that any competent developer can use the API without the need to 
examine the source code to resolve questions the documentation 
should answer. This level of detail is well recognized within the 
software development industry.
    Not mentioned in the Revised Judgement are file formats. In a 
monopoly position, it is important to require the monopolist to 
divulge file formats which controlling OSs, Middleware, or 
applications use. These full disclosures allow non-MS developers to 
develop competing products which can read and/or modify these files. 
These competing products might run on any OS, not just MS's OS. When 
MS plans changes to these file formats, they should be required to 
follow the same procedures detailed above for APIs.
    When an OS enjoys a monopoly position, it is very important for 
the health of the software development industry, the benefit of 
consumers, as well as the continued operation of standards- 
development and approval bodies, that the controlling OS supports 
such standards and does so faithfully. MS should be required to 
faithfully support all recognized standards which the software 
development industry and other OSs support now and in the future. MS 
must be required to implement these standards so that any MS or non-
MS product which follows the ``standard'' can inter-
operate with the OS and other MS products without any degradation of 
function. If MS wants to add ``enhancements'' to a 
standard, it must do so in such a way that any product which 
strictly follows the standard does not see any degradation of 
function. Failure to require MS to faithfully support standards will 
ultimately result in important ``standards'' becoming 
``Microsoft-ized'' which will force users of the 
``standard'' to use MSs OS and applications.
    Integration of applications into the OS simply should not be 
allowed! MS should be required to un-integrate its Internet Explorer 
product, as well as other products it has integrated into its newest 
Windows XP OS. Only bundled products and plug-ins, as I described 
above, should be allowed to be added to an OS. If any 
``default'' applications can be specified in the OS, then 
any application with the same basic functionality, whether MS or 
non-MS, should be able to be set as the default. The location in the 
OS where a default application can be set should be intuitively 
obvious and not hidden away in a hard to find menu somewhere.
    With the above exclusion of integrated products in the OS, any 
bundled or plug-in product, MS or non-MS, should be allowed to be 
completely deleted from the OS. In the case where a product must be 
specified as a default for proper operation of the OS, the user 
should still be allowed to delete any vendor's product, MS or non-
MS, and be given a choice to specify a different default. The only 
time a deletion would not be allowed is if the product were the 0nly 
product installed on the OS which could be specified as that 
default. To ``delete'' a product should never mean 
``hide its icon from view''--which is what the 
Revised Judgement allows. This supports the continued integration of 
application code into the OS. The code of the hidden product, even 
though the user no longer sees its icon, can still affect the 
operation of the OS and potentially disturb the operation of 
competing non-MS products. Developers need to know that an OS 
version is stable and unchanging and that installing a new 
application is not going to change some OS files (i.e. API 
libraries) and potentially break their applications.
    The developing MS .NET initiative should also be mentioned in 
the final Judgement. A core idea of .NET is the ``Common 
Language Runtime'' (CLR). This is a Middleware product just as 
Java's Runtime System is a Middleware product. It should be clearly 
stated in the final Judgement that MS cannot develop an OS version 
where every product is forced to run on the CLR (in other words, MS 
cannot integrate the CLR into their OS such that other products 
would not be able to run properly without it). This requirement goes 
hand-in-hand with requirements stated above to disallow integration 
of products and

[[Page 27615]]

to require MS to support existing and future standards as the 
industry needs. As a monopoly OS, MS must be required to continue to 
support the widest range of applications and services to guarantee a 
healthful and innovative climate for software developers.
    Specific mention of ``intentional incompatibilities'' 
should also be made in the final Judgement. MS was found guilty of 
adding intentional incompatibilities in an earlier court case 
involving Windows 3.1 and DR DOS. MS should be warned not to 
continue this practice in any form. Hopefully the Technical 
Committee to be set up will be independent and strong enough to be 
able to guard against this.
    THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
    The proposed Technical Committee must not have undue influence 
from MS. To this end, no member of the committee should be appointed 
by MS and MS should not have any veto power or any other kind of 
oversight power over the committee. There should be no limitation on 
who can be selected for the committee. MS should provide all 
necessary money to pay for the committee, but an independent 
organization should manage the administration of the money.
    Technical Committee members should be totally free to divulge to 
the public any problems or questionable practices it discovers, 
though source code should not be allowed to be divulged without 
proper peer review. When questions arise concerning source code, 
they should first be put through a formal review--if the code 
is indeed found to contain ``illegal'' code, then the 
source code should be allowed to be divulged and MS forced to fix 
the problem.
    The Technical Committee should have full access to not only the 
source code but all tools, compilers, and pre-processors which might 
be used by MS so that the committee can verify 
independently--by generating its own executables from the 
source code and verifying their equivalence to the released 
executables--that they have a complete copy of the source code 
which actually produced the released product. This will protect 
against the possibility that MS might be hiding bad code by 
introducing last-minute patches to their source files as they 
generate their executables.
    If the Technical Committee finds repeated infractions of the 
Judgement, or gross negligence, it should be stipulated that the 
Court can reconvene at any time to ponder splitting up MS if the 
conduct remedies are not effective or are simply being ignored.
    EQUITY IN CONSUMER CHOICE
    The final Judgement should stipulate the following principles 
which MS must follow to maximize consumer choice:
    1. The setting of default applications, and the installation or 
deletion of applications, should always be user driven. Never should 
the code decide on its own to do these things.
    2. MS should be required to provide only an ``empty 
house'' OS with additional CDs which contain all the MS 
products MS wishes to bundle and/or plug-in to the OS. These 
additional products are optional. Each product can be individually 
installed or deleted from the OS. MS cannot scare the consumer into 
installing its optional products over non-MS products by any 
comments in documentation or installation windows. Hardware 
manufacturers and resellers are free to install either MSs optional 
products or non-MS products. To keep MS from killing other market 
categories, and to potentially reinvigorate market categories it has 
already hampered or decimated, MS should not be allowed to include 
any products on these additional CDs where other non-NS products 
already exist in the marketplace unless these other products are 
also offered for free. When competing products for sale exist, MS 
must compete for market share with separate products at reasonable 
prices.
    3. MS can publish a separately available OS for purchase by 
consumers which includes all its allowable bundled and plug-in MS 
products, but it must still include the additional CDs mentioned 
above so users have full access to installation and deletion 
options.
    4. MS must compete with all other software developers to provide 
quality products for bundling and plugging in. MS must publish price 
lists for these products, including volume discounts, just as 
described for OS price lists, so MS cannot force its add-ons on its 
vendors.
    5. No MS OS, Middleware, application, or plug-in can 
periodically pop up a dialog or some other message asking the user 
if they wish to do this or do that or purchase this service or 
purchase that service. Windows XP is an example of this horrendous 
behavior. At the very least, the user must be able to turn this 
``feature'' off at any time.
    6. When MS releases new versions of software which support 
modified file formats, MS should be required to provide separately 
available, reasonably priced or free, software which will convert 
not only the older format to the new format, but also convert the 
new format to the older format. This will negate the benefit MS 
gains by purposely changing file formats for no other reason than to 
force customers to purchase the latest version of their software.
    THE BOTTOM LINE Most of the above suggested remedies would come 
naturally if the court simply split MS into at least two companies 
as was originally decreed.
    Joseph P. Maia



MTC-00025300

From: Weston Cann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to write to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed 
final judgment (PFJ) in the Microsoft case. I am not a legal 
professional, but I am a software developer with 10 years of 
experience developing across the Windows/DOS, Macintosh, and Unix 
platforms. As an observer of and worker within the software 
industry, it is my conclusion that while the intent of some 
provisions in the judgement are worthy, overall, the judgement as 
written allows and even encourages significant anticompetitive 
practices to continue. As both a remedy and a punitive action 
discouraging future misbehavior, it seems likely to fail unless 
areas of concern are addressed:
    (1) The PFJ as I read it in section III requires Microsoft to 
open up its networking protocols and APIs to certain businesses 
deemed viable and safe by Microsoft itself, under terms it 
determines. The release of such protocols and APIs is an essential 
part of any good remedy, and it is heartening to see it in the 
proposal.
    However, having Microsoft make the decisions about what 
constitutes a viable business is a formula for failure. It is not 
difficult to imagine a scenario whereby the processes/criteria for 
obtaining API and protocol information become a barrier to entry, 
especially for those organizations not in Microsoft's favor.
    Furthermore, a whole host of legitimate organizations are left 
out under the language of the agreement: academic institutions, 
governments, public interest groups, and open source developers. Not 
the least of these are foundations and cooperatives such as the 
Apache Group, makers of the market leading webserver Apache, and the 
SAMBA team, makers of software which enables networking 
interoperability between Windows and other operating systems. Each 
of these organizations provide valuable and widely used software, 
but do not qualify as businesses. Microsoft has publicly stated that 
it considers open source software among the biggest threats to its 
business, and so Microsoft has incentive to avoid disclosing 
information to these organizations. A fully effective PFJ absolutely 
must contain reasonable provisions enabling academic institutions, 
government organizations, public interest groups, open source 
developers, and others to easily obtain required information.
    It is not lost on me that security concerns are referenced as 
reasons for the apparent concessions that let Microsoft determine 
recipients of documentation. Security is not an unreasonable 
consideration, especially as computing is increasingly associated 
with connectivity and communications. However, the argument that 
security must be maintained by secrecy regarding protocols and 
mechanisms is weak. Modern accepted professional security practices, 
much like modern academic practices, rely on extensive and open peer 
review of a security mechanism or protocol, and a system is 
considered truly trustworthy only after being widely tested with its 
inner workings exposed. While no system is without security flaws, 
the recent plague of security problems in Microsoft's email, 
webserver, and office productivity products highlight the relative 
ineffectiveness of Microsoft's current ``closed'' 
approach.
    Thus, a high degree of openness--even regarding things 
related to security--is unlikely to hurt Microsoft, and might 
in fact make their products more secure. Additionally, if Microsoft 
is allowed to avoid disclosing things related to security, is not 
difficult to imagine a scenario where it would intermingle security 
protocols and standard communication protocols, thereby relieving 
itself of any obligation to provide information about those 
protocols to an outside party. Because the ``security'' 
provision outlined in section J provides only weak legitimate 
benefits at best for Microsoft, and has great

[[Page 27616]]

potential for abuse, it will need to either be struck from the 
agreement, or carefully modified with these concerns in mind.
    Additionally, the disclosure agreement leaves out file formats, 
which lag only slightly behind communications/networking protocols 
and APIs in terms of essential importance to interoperability. 
Addition of these to the list of things disclosed under the 
agreement frees consumer data from lock-in by Microsoft, and removes 
a significant barrier to competing products.
    (2) In section III of the PFJ, there is some effort against 
prohibiting Microsoft from drafting agreements with OEMs that are 
likely to be harmful to the consumer and competitors. The intent of 
each agreement seems worthy, but I question the overall 
effectiveness of the agreements, especially in light of the 
resourcefulness Microsoft has displayed in skirting the intent of 
earlier prohibitions on their activities with OEMs. The provisions 
in the PFJ must be tightened. A complete solution would impose 
several requirements on Microsoft agreements with OEMs:
    (a) Microsoft may only differentiate the prices for any of its 
products (and associated support services) based on the volume 
purchased by the buyer. This price may never be greater than the 
published retail price for the product, or the average of the lowest 
retail prices found at three retailers, whichever is lower. The list 
of prices must be publicly available to any individual.
    (b) Microsoft must sell (and deliver in a timely manner) to any 
buyer at the prices established, and may not make any stipulation of 
OEMs or resellers as a requirement of such a sale, nor make any such 
stipulations of them as requirement to resell licenses.
    Combined with a sufficiently severe penalty for violation, these 
requirements would effectively immobilize Microsoft efforts to 
manipulate OEMs. It would also be easy to police: any organization 
which Microsoft refused to sell a product to or charged a higher-
than-published price could simply report to the appropriate 
enforcement body.
    (There is some flaw to these requirements alone--concerns 
about other incentives would still be present. Microsoft could, for 
example, say to an important OEM ``we'll pay for your marketing 
budget for the whole year if you will not include Competitor X's 
software on your machine''. This highlights the difficulty of 
any general solution. Perhaps a mixture of the general language of 
the PFJ --which discourages Microsoft retaliation --and 
this section in my document could address the problem.)
    (3) Definitions within the PFJ provide loopholes big enough to 
drive a truck through. The language of the document suffers from 
lack of technical precision, which, in the end, will degrade legal 
precision and in turn prevent firm and timely enforcement. I 
advocate definition changes similar to those recommended by Dan 
Kegel in his online document at http://www.kegel.com/ remedy/
remedy2.html
    (4) I am concerned that the proposed Technical Oversight 
Committee will have limited power to report their findings and 
activities publicly. Especially considering the potential for 
different attitudes regarding enforcement at the DOJ (dependent on 
prevailing political winds), it would seem important for the 
industry and the public at large to know how effective the proposed 
remedies are. The actions and reports of the committee should be a 
matter of public record.
    It is my hope that the court will carefully consider these 
points and include them in the final judgement.
    regards,
    Weston Cann
    1089 N 250 E
    Orem UT 84057
    801.225.0304
    [email protected]



MTC-00025301

From: Kromholz Seth-p53201
To: `microsoft.atr (a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir Or Madam:
    I am a software engineer who writes code for a living. In 
addition, I have been following the computer industry intently for 
twenty years.
    Last night I was flipping through an old catalog of software 
titles for early ``mid-eighties'' computer systems. Each 
product in the catalog was sold by a software maker that no longer 
exists today. Many of these companies were acquired by Microsoft. 
Others were put out of business by Microsoft.
    The software industry today is a repressive environment, mostly 
due to the lack of ability to compete in so many markets. Every time 
a new product or innovation is introduced, a department at Microsoft 
is formed to counteract the threat by introducing a similar product, 
usually given away for free. There has been no real market force to 
stop them from using their natural monopoly in software operating 
systems to dominate nearly every other field of computing. It's as 
if the maker of the foundation of your house got to dictate 
everything that gets built on top, from your walls to your window 
draperies.
    I would very much like to see Justice done in this case. The 
attempt that Microsoft and Bill Gates made to settle the antitrust 
suit was reprehensible (donating software to schools which cost them 
next-to-nothing to make but which would entrench them even more 
heavily in that market at the expense of would-be competitors). 
Please make sure that this sort of insulting arrogance does not go 
unpunished.
    Sincerely,
    Seth D. Kromholz
    Software Engineer
    General Dynamics Decision Systems
    seth.kromholz@ gd-decisionsystems.com



MTC-00025302

From: Alessandro Simonini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is now the only way to keep peace in this 
complicated market, please leave Microsoft the right to innovate! 
The Information Technology Market is a Trillion Dorrar Market every 
year in the world, Microsoft count only for 30 billion, even if you 
think Microsoft is a Monopoly let this happen, you must to interven 
only when this monopoly don't innovate more, you may see innovation 
walking from monopoly to monopoly, from a company to another one... 
when the innovation is done and the market steady, and only when and 
if you will see monopoly you will have my consenus to fight the 
monopoly!
    Thanks to read me,
    Alessandro Simonini,
    Ferrara, Italy.



MTC-00025303

From: Bridget Pitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft monopoly
    You need to seriously reconsider the remedies you are taking 
against Microsoft. If you fail to reduce their total domination of 
computing, via the leveraging of their operating systems, you have 
failed the American People. It stifles competetion and innovation 
and if you dont believe that Microsoft will stop with computing you 
are truly blind. Revisit the thought processes of the 20th Century's 
greatest President Theodore Roosevelt. The man who took on the 
Robber Barrons and won. Bill Gates and Microsoft are even more 
powerful than J.P. Morgan and John Rockefeller-use the Sherman Anti 
Trust Act the way Teddy Roosevelt did, do whats best for the United 
States of America, not the economy in it's current state or the 
Presidents approval rating; but what is best for the Country long 
term. Severe measures will allow new start ups with fresh ideas to 
prosper-as it is now they are forced to play by Microsoft's rules 
until Microsoft can swallow them whole.
    Please consider harsher penaltiesfor the Ghengis Khan of 
American Business.
    Thanks for listening
    Ken Pitt



MTC-00025304

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts 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 27617]]

    Sincerely,
    Sue Whitehorn
    2021 Gunn Road
    Carmichael, CA 95608



MTC-00025305

From: Peter Cohen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have been following the Microsoft case from the very beginning 
and I have enjoyed a front row view having been an employee of Sun 
Microsystems for the last four years. In short, I am completely in 
favor of the settlement that has been reached. And I would insist 
that all further actions by the states attorney generals end 
immediately. I never thought the government should have entered this 
case. It is a totally political action brought about by Microsoft's 
competitors who have not been able to win in the marketplace based 
on their own business skills or rather the lack of them. Scott 
McNealy, the CEO of Sun desperately wants to be Bill Gates, in the 
worst way. And he is going about it in the worst way. He is 
extremely envious of his success, wealth, position, etc. and because 
he can not out market Microsoft he plans to out sue them, and use 
the government to help. And he is not the only one.
    Basically, the government has become a pawn of 
overzealous,greedy, envious Silicon Valley tycoons who want more. 
That is a disgusting position for the government to be in and 
history will show the folly and the mistake it's been. It sets an 
extremely poor example to the rest of the world that our own 
government would take sides to bring down one of the most successful 
companies ever created on these shores.
    I and many others are completely shocked that the politicians 
pontificating about Microsoft's menace can be so fooled and so 
stupid.
    If the other companies complaining had used the same energy they 
``ve put into this case to create new technologies and 
innovations they would have already been way ahead of the game by 
now.
    I want to be clear. I don't write this as a disgruntled 
employee, as I am still heavily invested in Sun as a company. I 
write this as a person interested only in the truth, which sadly has 
been missing from this entire case.



MTC-00025306

From: andy fuertes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:03pm
Subject: microsoft ruling
    To whom it may concern,
    As a consumer, US citizen, and hi-tech analyst, i am deeply 
concerned by the lack of measures to punish and/or change 
microsoft's conduct. The current proposal, which nine states have 
signed off on, does little to stop Microsoft's illegal conduct. I am 
apalled. I believe that we need stricter penalites on Microsoft as 
well as immediate and sustained action to actually stop their abuse 
of their monopoly position.
    Regards
    Andrew Albert Fuertes



MTC-00025307

From: David J. Ourisman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the microsoft settlement doesn't go far enough



MTC-00025308

From: Arsenio Calle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:03pm
Subject: Settlement
    As an American sufffering for the current state of the economy, 
in need of a job and work opportunities, I ask that you kindly 
settle the dispute with Micrtosoft. I don't believe we are going to 
see the economy bouncing back unless these outstanding legal 
problems with our major corporations are put behind us, and the 
companies are allowed to go back to work and invest in new research 
and development.: and their products start selling and they start 
hiring more people.
    Respectfully yours,
    Arsenio Calle



MTC-00025309

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I APPRECIATE WHAT MICROSOFT HAS DONE TO ENHANCE SENIOR CONSUMER 
EFFORT TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF ENRICHING OUR LIVES, KEEPING IN TOUCH 
WITH FAMILY AND OVERALL TO KEEP IN TOUCH WITH THE ``REST OF THE 
WORLD'' IN OBTAINING INFORMATION TO BETTER OUR LIVES; AND ALSO 
TO BECOME AWARE OF SENIOR ISSUES THAT MIGHT IMPACT US...BOTH 
FAVORABLY...AND UNFAVORABLY.
    STOP THE GRIEVING PROCESS AGAINST MICROSOFT.
    Angell



MTC-00025310

From: Sybil A. SKAKLE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time this case is set to rest. It has gone on too long. 
From all I know, Microsoft has not done anything wrong. Don't mess 
up this company and the lives of those who are employed by the 
company.
    Best wishes,
    Sybil A. Skakle



MTC-00025311

From: Galen Panger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:05pm
Subject: Antitrust case
    Hello,
    I strongly urge the courts to seriously curb Microsoft's power. 
The market needs to be reopened to competition. Take a look at 
Microsoft's record with the security of its products--it's full 
of holes. More competition would force Microsoft to be serious about 
protecting its users.
    Also, Microsoft has so much influence with its Windows operating 
system, it could practically take over any market--take a look 
at how it killed Netscape, how it's trying to kill the MP3 format 
with Windows Media. Look at how it decided now to not include Java 
in Windows XP. Microsoft is advancing its strategy using every force 
necessary--and unfortunately for the competition, it's power is 
too strong, it's pockets too deep. Do people want Software as a 
Service? Do people want Microsoft's Software Assurance? Not me. But 
I will probably be forced to use it.
    I thought that splitting Microsoft's Windows from its 
Applications software was a brilliant idea--and exactly the way 
to make Microsoft stop using the influence it has to serve its 
applications'' interests (i.e. Internet Explorer). But, please 
do not force Microsoft to open its source code--that will only 
help the Company better its products with improved source code. 
Nonetheless, Microsoft thinks that what it says goes in the market. 
I really don't like knowing that if Microsoft is introducing a new 
product, it must make sure it stiffles the competition--aka 
.Net and Java. Very sad. I hope that somehow Microsoft's power to 
eliminate competition is severely curbed.
    Sincerely,
    Galen Panger
    Zion, IL



MTC-00025312

From: Rudolf Forster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    My comments regarding the proposed settlement:
    I strongly feel that there has already been too much time and 
money spent on this sham legal attack by the sworn enemy's of 
Microsoft and the company's leader. I have followed the controversy 
closely and I find very little merit in the position that has been 
taken against this company. The action was promulgated by 
competitors that advocate the destruction of this company as a means 
to enrich themselves by ridding the marketplace of a strong 
competitor. The average user of personal computers have benefited 
immensely by the products and leadership of Microsoft. Because of 
this company the world has been able to adopt and unite behind the 
Microsoft standards, and therefore avail themselves of what amounts 
to a virtual universal language. MS is number 1 for a very good 
reason. They have produced a product that works quite well. That 
they got to the market first with the most should be no crime in 
America. The government should get out of the way and allow the 
capitalist market to work its magic. Companies that cannot compete 
successfully should be allowed to fall by the wayside, and not be 
propped up artificially by government fiat.
    Sincerely,
    Rudolf Forster
    [email protected]



MTC-00025313

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:

[[Page 27618]]

    I agree with the terms of the settlement, and believe it's fair, 
and reasonable. I also believe it's in the best interest of America, 
and will help the struggling economy.
    Please approve this settlement.
    Wendell Parrish
    488 W. Plumb Lane
    Reno, NV 89509



MTC-00025314

From: Ammie Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
    I have used the internet for a decade. When AOL first came out I 
joined not realizing I was not on the world wide web, but stuck in 
the AOL space where information outside was not made available. (Or 
at least not that a newbie could understand.) It's that way today!! 
Ask anyone if they prefer AOL (limited access) to any other company 
like MSN or Juno or Yahoo and ``hands down'' the 
experienced user says NO!! You are trapped inside AOL! Business's 
advertising in aol must use a different address for access outside 
AOL. Does that mean all other companies have a monopoly because AOL 
chooses to remain separate from the rest? AOL is alone and is not 
compatible with all other companies so they are screaming for a 
court system to make a judgment on ``free'' enterprise and 
innovation that excels the AOL application!! The software made by 
Microsoft is duplicatable and sets an example of interacting 
programming that makes the public users life easier. So let AOL get 
off the pot and developed their own!! WE (john doe public) can chose 
between them!! The courts really should see the big picture and tell 
AOL to stop bothering them and wasting my hard earned tax paid 
dollars!! I will not use AOL EVER AGAIN!! I will use any other 
application but not theirs!! I have only had bad experiences with 
that company and the public service policy holds the key to the 
companies future. Just step back and look at what AOL has done to 
improve it's position in the technology is uses to exist! Nada! 
Zilch! Zip!! ``I wish I could cry ``monopoly'' every 
time my life isn't as successful as any corporation! Just because 
they have all the brains and money I don't have doesn't mean they 
should develop above me.'' Get my point???
    MSN has done nothing but excel in this country and it has 
allowed every home to own a computer!! Free Enterprise!! Free 
Innovative, Interactive Software technology! Doesn't AOL have this 
too??? Let them develop something bigger and better and see how much 
they complain. MSN has never stopped them or any other company from 
doing just that!
    Ammie Nelson
    715 Greenbriar Townhouse Way
    Las Vegas, NV. 89121
    1-702-451-5313



MTC-00025315

From: d minix
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not allow the Microsoft corporation to settle the case 
with their offer of software to schools. They must be punished for 
their anti competitive stance and allowing them to dump their 
software on public schools only entrenches their monopoly. Let them 
give cash and let the schools decide how to use it.
    Thank you.
    David Minix



MTC-00025316

From: Philip Haddad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Association of Concerned Taxpayers (www.aoctp.org) reports 
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; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly 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 need to let the Department of Justice know how we feel about the 
Microsoft Settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Philip Haddad



MTC-00025317

From: Michael Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, all lawsuits against Microsoft should be dropped 
or settled. Let's focus on getting the economy back on track.
    -Michael Allen



MTC-00025318

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Although I have co-signed the open letter provided by Dan Kegel 
at his website, I feel it necessary to provide my own comments on 
the matter of the Microsoft Settlement. It was not until very 
recently that I was made aware that I could contribute comment in 
regards to the settlement, and although it is likely that I will not 
have time to complete my review of the settlement before the 
deadline for commenting, here are the comments that I have 
determined to date:
    Section III.D.
    I agree that the covered items are insufficient to provide 
equitable development capabilities to Microsoft and non-Microsoft 
developers. As well, it provides no means to insure promptness of 
publication (the definition of ``timely manner'' can 
easily be worked around) nor remedies for internal communications 
about the future plans of APIs to which Microsoft programmers may be 
privy and for which they may accordingly provide for in their 
programming.
    Section III.I.
    This section does not provide sufficient requirements to define 
the patent scope and licensure for intellectual property of 
Microsoft. A major inhibitor to development by non-Microsoft 
software developers is the potential of having to defend against the 
giant that is Microsoft. Legal fees alone may put all but the 
largest companies out of business long before the suit could be 
completed even should it result in a favorable decision for the 
other party. This section has merely provided some access to these 
patents and intellectual property without providing for their 
application.
    In general, I have been very disappointed with this judgement 
and do not feel that it is a sufficient remedy. I do not believe 
that Microsoft has, or will, behave in any better good faith than 
they have shown in the past and that this settlement does not 
provide the means to unfetter the market for the long term, if 
possibly not even for the short term.
    Sincerely,
    Karen Holland, PE
    Sr. Instrumentation & Controls Engineer
    Northborough, MA



MTC-00025319

From: Jim Copeland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few 
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one 
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
    James R. Copeland
    5763 St. George Ave.
    Crozet, VA, 22932
    434-823-4293



MTC-00025320

From: Ron MacKinnon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern;
    I'd like to add my concern to the many others who have already 
made their feelings known on this matter.
    I am very practical and pragmatic as to the tools I use, and I 
don't care much where a quality product comes from. If Microsoft 
software was the best available and Microsoft had become the 
dominant player simply due to the fact that they had the best tool 
for the job at hand and had risen to the top on true merit, I would 
really have no problem with their being the dominant player in the 
computing world. I don't want to turn this into a diatribe on the 
quality of Microsoft's products, but the above is simply not the 
case.
    Microsoft has become the dominant player on the computing 
desktop through the use of anti-competitive tactics, force, 
bullying, and the use of a tremendous amount of money and other 
influence, irrespective of the quality of their products. I believe 
that the proposed settlement between the Government and Microsoft is 
a disservice to the tax-paying public. I cannot feel that my

[[Page 27619]]

wishes have been served by this inadequate solution.
    Microsoft must be forced to compete on a level playing field 
along with all other companies with similar products to offer. If 
the proposed settlement is allowed, they will simply continue as 
they have been in the past.
    An inadequately subdued Microsoft will continue to attempt to 
disallow my choice in computing software and hardware. They will 
continue in their attempt to force me to do my work (and play!) the 
way they think I should, according to their ``vision'' for 
my computing future. They will continue to limit my choices and my 
options. They have leveraged themselves into a position where they 
can decide for me how I will use my computer, and almost completely 
choose what kind that computer will be and what system and 
application software will be on it.
    I have great hope that my voice, and those of the many others 
who have taken the time to respond to this issue, will be heard and 
that our wishes will be served.
    Thank you very much;
    Ron MacKinnon
    45840 Hopactong St.
    Temecula, CA 92592



MTC-00025321

From: mmn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:12pm
Subject: ``icrosoft Settlement''
    Honorable Justice Department, Sir:
    The consumer interests have been well served. Please end this 
damaging litigation.
    Respectfully,
    Cecil Nickelson
    175 Monumental Circle
    Sparks, Nevada 89436.



MTC-00025322

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:10pm
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,
    Laura Brown
    304 Alvera
    Winters, TX 79567



MTC-00025323

From: Roberta Skibba
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement stinks. Microsoft needs to be 
punished enough so that it hurts and they won't err again. 
Otherwise, it is meaningless.



MTC-00025324

From: Jane Montague Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I would like to recommend that the agreement between Microsoft, 
the DoJ and nine states be accepted.
    It is so foolish, especially at this time of a national economic 
slump to continue to disable Microsoft.
    Sure, lots of unemployed Microsoft technicians might be called 
back in to resolve the mess if this agreement is rejected, but this 
is a poor way to resolve the unemployment crisis in the tech world. 
It appears that the ones wanting to reject it, have crossed the 
line, from trying to make it fare to all tech companies to get a 
piece of the action, and have moved into the realm of ``lets 
get microsoft'', lets try to make them die.
    I'm a home user who just wants all my stuff to work correctly 
and microsoft does a better job of doing that, as well as constantly 
creating more solutions to running businesses. In disabling 
Microsoft, you are disabling users like myself.
    Mac computers seem to dominate the market in elementary schools, 
why don't we site them for unfair practices?
    Thanks for listening.



MTC-00025325

From: Michele Acerra
To: Microsoft settlement
Date: 1/25/02 7:15pm
Subject: Antitrust settlement between Microsoft, the DoJ and nine 
states.
    Gentlemen!
    I understand that Monday Jan.28 is the last day for public 
comments on thesubject of this e-mail.
    Respectfully, as a shareholder, as a Microsoft software user 
since day one, as a citizen, believe that all this matter has to 
stop and that the proposed settlement should be accepted by all 
parties. The terms of the settlement are tough, but are reasonable 
and fair to all parties, and meet, and perhaps go beyond, the ruling 
by the Court of Appeals, and represent the best opportunity for the 
industry and everybody to move the hell forward!
    It is incredible to me that ``these pain in the ass'' 
of the AOL subsidiary ``Netscape Communications Co.'' have 
the balls to still screw around with this matter, now with a private 
lawsuit! I believe that you guys at the DoJ have to read of the most 
important industry analysts, including James K. Glassman, (http://
www.techcentralstation.com/ 1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051- 
250&CID=105 1-012302E) who specifically says: 
``Instead of straightening out its business problems, AOL has 
decided to spend its time and effort filing lawsuits against tough 
competitors--a petty, distracting pursuit that won't help AOL 
or, for that matter, the U.S. economy, which depends on firms like 
Microsoft for the innovation necessary to bring about a technology 
revival.''
    As an AOL shareholder I could not be more in agreement!
    Please stop all this nonsense for the Industry and the Country 
by starting to inforce the subject settlement.
    Thanks for your time and attention
    Michele (Mike) Acerra
    10, Summer Lane
    Califon, NJ 07830



MTC-00025326

From: Steven Paul, CPA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
RE: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    I would like to see the proposed settlement with Dept of Justice 
and the various States Attorneys General concluded. I believe that 
Microsoft competitors were behind the instigation of the 
government's lawsuit in the beginning and no value exists in 
continuing this effort. An effort, I might add that seems to have at 
its heart the goal of propping up products which may not truly be 
competition to Microsoft products.
    Standardization of various software platforms and aggressive 
software development guardianship was in my opinion at the root of 
and will continue (if allowed to continue by conclusion of this 
case) to keep America at the forefront of this industry. The 
software products, platforms and hardware development that the 
government believes were harmed by Microsoft's alleged anti-
competitive behaviors were probably not the best platforms, software 
and hardware protocols in the marketplace. This Darwinian Natural 
Selection should not be artificially derailed simply to appease 
Microsoft's competitors.
    I found it interesting that Netscape Navigator filed suit 
against Microsoft in the waning days of the public comment period on 
the Anti-trust settlement. The timing and stated-motivation were 
intended to draw attention to another allegation by a competitor of 
unfair competition by Microsoft. Don't buy it.
    This is all part of the show intended to change the proposed 
settlement terms and protract the government's litigation for the 
benefit of Microsoft competitors. I'd guess that AOL...the biggest 
fish in the Internet Service Provider pond...probably knew what it 
was doing when it purchased Netscape for $10Billion during the Dept 
of Justice litigation. I don't really think it was gambling on a 
court judgment that would result in Microsoft's breakup when AOL 
decided on the purchase. It only indicates how tenuous the leader's 
real role is in this rapidly evolving industry. And look at AOL/Time 
Warner itself. It probably controls the largest content for 
potential future internet traffic. I believe AOL's proclaimed 
motivations in guiding Netscapes lawsuit against Microsoft are 
disingenuous.
    I do not feel I have been harmed economically from Microsoft's 
business

[[Page 27620]]

practices and don't believe you could find any consumers who have 
been. In fact, I believe that the large drop in prices of computer 
hardware and peripherals while at the same time having ever more 
powerful, faster and easier to utilize hardware and software 
applications has been, at least in part, the fruit of those business 
practices.
    I would like to see the proposed Settlement accepted by all 
parties. It's time to move on and halt the flow of government 
resources into this current misguided effort.
    Sincerely,
    Steven Paul, CPA
    4201 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 206
    Seattle, WA 98105
    (206) 322-6040



MTC-00025327

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Emilia Neudorff
    7806 Jason Ave.
    West Hillsq, CA 91304-4434



MTC-00025328

From: alan tsuda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement does not go far enough.
    Alan Tsuda



MTC-00025329

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached is a memo to John Ashcroft, Attorney General, regarding 
the Microsoft settlement.
    Roger Cramer
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw
January 26,2002
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Sir:
    The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my support for 
the recent settlement reached between the Justice Department and the 
Microsoft Corporation. America is currently in a period of 
recession. Americans are faced with increasing layoffs and a slowing 
stock market. Further litigation against Microsoft at this time is 
unwise policy. In contrast, resolution of this case will spur 
consumer confidence in the economy and benefit American industry 
significantly.
    The details of the settlement include many concessions made by 
Microsoft benefiting its competition. Microsoft has agreed to the 
formation of a supervisory board whose job it is to assure 
compliance with this settlement. Anyone wary of Microsoft's 
compliance then should be reassured given the objective nature of 
this board.
    The time has come to finally put this antitrust dispute behind 
us. The American economy deserves it.
    Sincerely,
    Roger Cramer



MTC-00025330

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
1601 3rd Street Southwest
Cedar Rapids, IA 52404-2814
(319) 362-0013
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    When I was informed about my rights under the Tunney Act to 
express my opinion on the Microsoft case, I could not help but 
utilize this opportunity. For the past three years I have watched in 
frustration as this case as dragged on and on and now some states 
want to push for further litigation. This is unreal! This lawsuit 
has already cost the taxpayers, Microsoft and the IT industry 
unspeakable amounts of money.
    I am in agreement with this settlement and believe the terms 
more than allow for competitor's access to Microsoft's 
infrastructure. For instance, Mircosoft has agreed to allow computer 
makers to configure Windows in a way that will accomadate non-
Microsoft software . They have also agreed to design future versions 
of Windows that will all for interoperation with non-Microsoft 
programs. In an addition to all of this Microsoft has made an 
unprecedented agreement to share internal Windows interfaces with 
their competitors.
    If the aforementioned terms are acceptable to the competitors, 
what are the states finding fault with. I hope that you will make 
the decision necessary to bring formalization to this settlement as 
soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Verlyn Davis



MTC-00025333

From: Jim and Carol McClure
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    In reviewing Mr. Gate's performance with the Microsoft Company I 
urge you to pass the proposal as it is presented by Microsoft 
without editing.
    Sincerely,
    Carol A. McClure



MTC-00025334

From: Lou Lopez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen;
    I know of no single contribution in my 35 plus years in business 
that has enhanced productivity more than the work product of the 
Microsoft Corporation. Were they guilty of predatory and/or 
monopolistic practices....you have the facts and you have ruled on 
them. That is past and there is not one shred of evidence that any 
of that type of behavior has been expressed in any way by the 
Microsoft Corporation in the last several years. Indeed, they 
probably are one of the most ethical firms in the country if not 
only for the fact that they know that there are numerous parties 
with virtually unlimited resources that are forever looking for such 
evidence to create another drain on the public's coffers via your 
good offices and to drain as much as they can from Microsoft in the 
naive belief that if they (i.e. Sun, Oracle, AOL) succeed, the loss 
in market position that Microsoft would suffer would be gained by 
them.
    That ``Zero sum'' logic is so patently obvious that it 
is offensive. Is it fair for AOL to dominate both the content and 
delivery channels of so much of what is available via the internet 
and television? Is it fair for AOL to now impose increases on the 
rates of those intermediate ISPs that serve remote areas that suffer 
from being victims of the digital divide by connecting those folks 
to AOL? Didn't Netscape really nail its customers in clever ways 
when it was in its heyday.....look carefully and you will see what I 
saw.
    The ``Scott and Larry'' show that attempts to provide 
a ``One-two'' punch to Microsoft to anyone that will give 
them an audience is as offensive as their obvious ``Zero 
sum'' strategy. If anyone that ever worked for Oracle ever gave 
honest testimony you would learn from them that the daily demand on 
every employee from Larry Ellison himself was for them to do what it 
took to displace any competitor so that Oracle would not only be the 
dominant database engine provider....but would in time be the only 
database engine provider. If he had succeeded in his goal he would 
have had a monopoly ....he just was not good enough to get there and 
continues to lose market share as I craft this letter to you. Don't 
think for a minute that if Scott and his Sun team could have locked 
up the engineering workstation or the Java Script language market 
potentials for themselves that they would have said 
``No''. Scott, like Larry failed to succeed in 
monopolizing their chosen market sectors as Bill did....and so their 
egos and envy and very deep pockets turned them into fools with too 
much money and too much free time on their hands so they set out to 
use those resources against Microsoft and in so doing effectively 
cost the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars to 
accomplish what a much less aggressive approach might well have 
accomplished.

[[Page 27621]]

    There are a number of firms that effectively monopolize their 
market niches and perhaps without meaning to they effectively employ 
predatory practices by making it clear that if their customers don't 
do what they want they will not have access to that firm's goods and 
or services. Senator Sam Ervin said something in the Watergate 
hearings that seems to fit, it was the old ``Two wrongs don't 
make a right''.
    On the other hand it seems unfair that just because Microsoft 
was the largest of those firms that monopolize their market niches 
that they alone should be singled out as they have been.
    It is time that we redirect our limited DOJ resources to more 
urgent issues and stop wasting the publics time and money to 
accommodate the interests of these three enterprises. Microsoft has 
agreed to the settlement terms and you can be sure that they will 
not want to go down this path again so this type of behavior will 
not likely be seen in Microsoft again for years to come. I most 
sincerely request that we move on to more important issues.



MTC-00025335

From: clancy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft brake up
    I think this is an attempt to socialize all businesses and 
against Capitalism. The other companies are only complaining because 
they did not think of doing what Microsoft is doing. Otherwise they 
would be doing the same thing.
    Stop all the law suits an get back to defending our nation.
    Clarence Kahler



MTC-00025336

From: Jorge Barrera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
15824 168th Avenue NE
Woodinville, WA 98072
January 2, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I work in television production. The future of digital 
technology in the television industry will again revolutionize our 
society. For the best benefit to our American society, Microsoft 
must be free to join in the innovations that will empower our still-
unfolding and expanding digital future. I believe that there was 
never a need to tear Microsoft into pieces, as actually happened 
with AT&T.
    I thank you for your support of the Microsoft settlement. It is 
the best solution available to us now. The settlement will allow 
Microsoft to stay together, while also opening up its Windows 
operating system to the computer industry. Microsoft has agreed to 
reveal the crown jewels, the internal interfaces and server 
protocols of Windows. It will license its copyrights and patents on 
non-discriminatory terms, rather than refuse infringing companies 
access to its brainpower. The settlement makes sense for the 
betterment of the industry. I appreciate your efforts to reach this 
settlement and have the federal court approve it.
    Sincerely,
    Jorge Barrera
    MagicHour Films, Inc.
    phone:206 443 9818
    fax:206 443 1453
    visit our website at:http://www.magichour.com
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025337

From: Clark N. Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. I understand that the requirements are 
insufficient to prevent further abuse, and it appears that there are 
no consequences attached to the anti-competitive actions that have 
hampered an industry.
    Please do review and strengthen the conditions, and consider the 
justice system remedies for illegal behavior, before settling. 
Thanks,--
    Clark --
    Clark N. Quinn
    OtterSurf Labs
    [email protected]
    925-200-0881
    http://www.ottersurf.com/



MTC-00025338

From: Mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement has many flaws and is not in the public 
interest. More needs to be done, as many DoJ people apparently 
believe; I will pick one key issue.
    Creation of an environment where viable alternatives to 
Microsoft's dominance in desktop operating systems flourish, and 
where competition in the variety of related monopolies that have 
arisen and will arise from that dominance is allowed and feasible, 
requires, in a fast-paced technology environment, both speed and 
pragmatism.
    Speed requires that the eventual actions required of Microsoft 
should be carried out fully and in a timely manner--the 
definition of timely to be decided, and compliance to it to be 
monitored, by the court or the DoJ or other appropriate body, 
advised by industry.
    Pragmatism requires recognising the critical relief that should 
be provided to non-Microsoft innovators to ``level the playing 
field''--that is, to publish fully all the APIs and file 
formats used by Microsoft itself, past, present, and, where 
relevant, future--relevance, to be determined, again, by the 
court or the DoJ or other appropriate body. It is ingenuous to 
suppose that Microsoft can be trusted to act fully and completely in 
accordance with whatever final settlement is reached, and in 
particular with these two aspects--hence the need for active 
and appropriate compliance monitoring.
    Lindows, Codeweavers WINE, and numerous other innovations 
will--given these actions--produce in the relatively short 
term a non-Microsoft desktop operating system that will run 
Microsoft and other applications software. There will then, and only 
then, be an environment in which real competition exists.



MTC-00025339

From: Campbell Marquette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    G'day,
    As a long time user of Microsoft products I wish to make a few 
comments about the proposed settlement.
    Microsoft has done more than any other company in making 
computers a major part of people's lives. They have made software 
that has enabled anyone to sit down and use a computer, any 
computer. This would not have possible without the great work 
Microsoft has done.
    The proposed settlement is more than fair, in fact I believe 
that Microsoft is completely in the right and should be left to 
continue the great work they have started. Microsoft has done 
nothing wrong. It is the companies such as AOL that hide behind the 
courts instead of living in the real world where true competition 
occurs.
    The proposed settlement will force Microsoft to make several 
major concessions to its operating systems and its business 
practices. The proposal will make computers more difficult to use, 
less user friendly and less innovative, unfortunately this may be 
the best solution we can come up with.
    Microsoft is a great company and any harm that is done to 
Microsoft will cause only harm to the users of computers in the 
world.
    I ask of you to accept the proposed remedies and let Microsoft 
continue being an innovative company.
    Cheers,
    Campbell.



MTC-00025340

From: Lloyd Smiley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft hit Microsoft and the 
economy in March 2000; contributed significantly to the slide of the 
stock market and poor performance of most companies throughout the 
country for the past 23 months. We cannot justify the continuation 
of damaging Microsoft for the benefit of Apple, Oracle, AOL Time 
Warner and the remaining nine envious detracting states.
    Linux has become the primary operating system in IBM's most 
advanced servers, just introduced, a substantial switch from 
Microsoft Windows and NT to a highly competitive alternative OS. 
Innovation and the market is working without Federal and State 
Government intervention. AOL Netscape with 33,000,000 has three 
times more subscribers than Microsoft Explorer, yet AOL files a 
lawsuit that Netscape has been disadvantaged. AOL also withholds 
documents from the litigation process and encourages the nine 
intransigent states to prosecute with no ending, What gall! What 
runaway greed!

[[Page 27622]]

    The Appeals Court and Department of Justice Antitrust Division 
have an opportunity to put this costly litigation with Microsoft to 
rest and somehow placate the nine foot-dragging states so we can 
move on to a more productive period for the entire economy. For 
God's sake, please put this legal morass in back of us so we can 
breathe normally again.
    As Microsoft customers for the past 20 years we have never 
experienced any wrongdoing in overcharges in fees or software; in 
fact, we hope and pray we can do as well over the next 20 years in 
relying on Microsoft in their outstanding innovations and service to 
customers, the industry and the economy.
    Lloyd Smiley, President
    Performa Company
    4830 East Coventry Drive
    Vero Beach, FL 32967-7301
    [email protected]
    Telephone: 561-564-9825



MTC-00025341

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    June Cascio
    654 Jordan St
    Shreveport, LA 71101



MTC-00025342

From: Brian Cebull
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I strongly support the settlement terms that the Department of 
Justice and nine states reached with Microsoft in November 2001, and 
I urge you to adopt the terms of the agreement as soon as possible.
    The settlement contains tough yet reasonable provisions that 
will make it easier for companies to compete with Microsoft. 
Competing companies will receive more information than ever from 
Microsoft regarding software codes and books. Microsoft must also 
design future versions of Windows, starting with Windows XP, to make 
it easier to install non- Microsoft software.
    This settlement will not only benefit competing companies but 
will benefit the technology industry as a whole by allowing 
Microsoft to devote its resources to innovative software design, 
rather than litigation. Again, I strongly support this settlement 
and feel it will serve in the best interest of the public.
    Sincerely,
    Brian R. Cebull
    Nance Petroleum Corporation
    PO Box 7168
    Billings, MT 59103
    (406)245-6248



MTC-00025343

From: Sandra Wright
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sandra Wright
1104 Old Lynchburg Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
    January 25, 2002
    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,
    sandra f. wright



MTC-00025344

From: Stephen Baber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    It is a great risk to my career as a software engineer that I 
write to you for the public record as permitted by the Tunney Act. 
Given Microsoft's vengeful corporate culture, this very document 
will surely be used to bar me (and the many other's writing in 
opposition to Microsoft's illegal leveraging of it's monopoly power) 
from working, if left unregulated and in our lifetimes, by the only 
remaining technology company in America.
    My primary concern is that the settlement being prepared by Mr. 
Charles James (1) would not prevent the central ways Microsoft was 
found to have illegally maintained its Windows monopoly, (2) does 
nothing to restore competition in the OS market, an express Court of 
Appeals requirement for a Microsoft remedy, and (3) has no 
provisions directed to Windows XP and other new endeavors of 
Microsoft to extend and protect its monopoly to new markets in the 
future, another express Court of Appeals requirement for a Microsoft 
remedy. The proposal is so far outside the mainstream of antitrust 
law, and so completely contradicts the DC Circuit's unanimous 
opinion affirming Microsoft's guilt, that the only explanation must 
be political.
    My suggestions for restoring fair competition are to (1) spin-
off every Microsoft product which has market dominance into it's own 
separate corporate entity, and (2) require that Microsoft publish 
the file formats and communications protocols used by those products 
so that competitors may create compatible software and hardware.
    My suggestions for punishing this repeat offender are (3) any 
fines required by the 1995 Consent-Decree should be paid as well as 
all court costs, and (4) Company president William Harold Gates III 
and CEO Steven Ballmer should admit their wrong doing on national 
television, also (5) Microsoft should be barred from spinning their 
loss into a case of government interference.
    Our citizens have given their lives for the principles on which 
this nation was built, a nation of laws and not a nation of men, I 
urge you to perform your duty as guardians of justice and protect us 
from a corporation which has committed flagrantly illegal acts for 
the maintenance of their monopoly powers. Posterity will remember if 
we acted when there was still time to stop the disappearance of 
consumer choice and the free market system.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Baber
    Software Engineer
    2904 24th Ave W
    Seattle WA 98199



MTC-00025345

From: Merv R Heebner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Issues
    I am writing to let you know that I think that Microsoft is 
being given the shaft. It is certainly within their rights to market 
their products as they have done. This country has been built on 
entrepreneur ship. Actions against Microsoft is a slap in the face 
of what has made America great.
    Thank you.
    Merv Heebner



MTC-00025346

From: Nicholas Esposito
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 27623]]

Date: 1/25/02 7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please read attachment below.
    Nicholas T. Esposito
    24 Juniper Creek Boulevard
    Pinehurst, NC 28374
    January 23, 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 inform you of my support of the 
Microsoft settlement. Over the past three years, the federal 
government has launched a legal attack on Microsoft. The result of 
this attack has served only to curb productivity in our technology 
sectors. Given the current economic recession, I believe that 
settling this issue will facilitate growth in the industry once 
more.
    Compromises have been made throughout the process. Microsoft has 
agreed to license Windows at the same rate to the largest producers 
of PCs. This will ensure that computer makers have a level playing 
field. Further, PC makers will have the option to market computers 
that have non-Microsoft software enabled onto the Windows system 
upon sale. Microsoft agreed all of these changes to in the interests 
of resolving the issue. I would hope that you see the importance in 
enacting this settlement at your earliest convenience. Thank you for 
your time regarding this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Nicholas Esposito
    cc: Representative Howard Coble



MTC-00025347

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    I believe the recommendations made here: http://
www.securityfocus.com/news/315 would be of very substantive benefit 
in helping prevent future abuses of monopoly by MS.
    Thank You
    Andrew Price
    C.O.O.
    HealthSpace Integrated Solutions Ltd.
    HealthSpace USA Inc.
    Tel. (604) 860-4224
    http://www.healthspace.ca



MTC-00025348

From: John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
15 Broadway
Ocean Grove, NJ 07756
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I urge you as strongly as possible to settle the Microsoft 
antitrust case and to end the extensive and costly legal proceedings 
against them. I find the amount of money spent fighting the case an 
irresponsible use of resources, and the case should be wrapped up as 
quickly as possible at this point.
    As an everyday computer user, I find a uniform operating system 
to be beneficial in my ability to smoothly operate my PC. Though 
some of Microsoft's tactics have been heavy-handed, there is no 
denying the success they have had in making programs work seamlessly 
with each other and creating a standard other companies have yet to 
match. Though they will lose some of their entrepreneurial freedom 
in disclosing Windows coding to competitors, it will allow Microsoft 
to get back to business, and to continue paving the way for 
innovations that benefit millions of people.
    Therefore, I am in favor of settling the case as soon as 
possible. If our past President, Mr. Clinton had spent as much time, 
energy and money pursuing Bin Laden and company as he had pursuing 
Bill Gates and company (Microsoft), we as a nation would be in 
better shape. One of the main reasons I voted for President Bush was 
in the belief that he would do the right thing.
    Sincerely,
    John Sosenko



MTC-00025349

From: John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:25pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
15 Broadway
Ocean Grove, NJ 07756
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I urge you as strongly as possible to settle the Microsoft 
antitrust case and to end the extensive and costly legal proceedings 
against them. I find the amount of money spent fighting the case an 
irresponsible use of resources, and the case should be wrapped up as 
quickly as possible at this point.
    As an everyday computer user, I find a uniform operating system 
to be beneficial in my ability to smoothly operate my PC. Though 
some of Microsoft's tactics have been heavy-handed, there is no 
denying the success they have had in making programs work seamlessly 
with each other and creating a standard other companies have yet to 
match. Though they will lose some of their entrepreneurial freedom 
in disclosing Windows coding to competitors, it will allow Microsoft 
to get back to business, and to continue paving the way for 
innovations that benefit millions of people.
    Therefore, I am in favor of settling the case as soon as 
possible. If our past President, Mr. Clinton had spent as much time, 
energy and money pursuing Bin Laden and company as he had pursuing 
Bill Gates and company (Microsoft), we as a nation would be in 
better shape. One of the main reasons I voted for President Bush was 
in the belief that he would do the right thing.
    Sincerely,
    John Sosenko



MTC-00025350

From: bekki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not accept the proposed settlement as an adequate 
solution to the Microsoft monopoly. Speaking as a consumer, I am 
very concerned that this is inadequate protection and in fact only 
encourages them to continue their illegal actions.
    Thank you,
    Rebecca Andrews
    18 Lansing Street #402
    San Francisco, California 94105



MTC-00025351

From: David Kidd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the tentative settlement of the United States 
vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit.
    David B. Kidd
    Mableton, GA



MTC-00025352

From: David Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:28pm
Subject: [email protected] . DON'T DO IT......
    Please note that as a consumer who has suffered under 
Microsoft's strangle hold on the technology that I hope and pray you 
will not allow the current settlement proposal to be approved.
    Thank you,
    David Jones



MTC-00025353

From: Steve Hilditch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Please find enclosed my comments regarding the pending 
settlement between the United States Government, several individual 
states and Microsoft Corp.
    First, let me state that I am neither in the employ nor have any 
dealings with of any of the parties directly affected by this 
action, but am a consumer whose past and future access to technology 
and the advancement to society that a diverse and thriving 
technology sector offers has been diminished by Microsoft's 
anticompetitive corporate behavior.
    It is my view that the proposed remedies are a grossly 
disproportionate to the violations of which Microsoft has been 
proven guilty. The proposed settlement verges on being meaningless 
in enforcing upon Microsoft any degree of compliance with the 
principles of justice that are required to curb Microsoft's ongoing 
anticompetitive behavior .
    It is my firm belief that nothing short of the partitioning of 
Microsoft into separate corporations, each prohibited from engaging 
with the other to any extent beyond that

[[Page 27624]]

afforded to a third party, will suffice. In order to avoid the 
continuance of the damage that has been inflicted within the 
marketplace to formerly able bodied competitors requires substantial 
and meaningful action.
    I urge you to step above narrow partisan politics and enforce to 
the fullest degree possible under the law strong measures to deal 
with the past and future actions of Microsoft Corp.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Hilditch



MTC-00025354

From: Anil Godbole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement with DOJ is very very fair. We should 
let Microsoft innovate & introduce new products as long as they 
abide by non-monopolistic business practices.
    -Anil Godbole
    Cupertino, CA 95014



MTC-00025355

From: Dale Phurrough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree and support the proposed settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Dale Phurrough
    1723 25th Ave #C
    Seattle WA 98122



MTC-00025356

From: Edward Liu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am writing to you under the auspices of the Tunney Act to 
express my great disappointment in the Proposed Final Judgement in 
the case of the US vs. Microsoft. In my opinion, the proposed 
settlement does not adequately punish the acts detailed in the 
findings of fact, which stated rather unequivocally that Microsoft 
used its monopoly power to damage its competitors unfairly.
    The current settlement is little more than a slap on the wrist, 
and is disturbingly similar to the consent decree of 1995, where 
Microsoft promised to amend its behavior in the marketplace. 
Clearly, as Microsoft's legally defined anti-trust violations 
demonstrate, the consent decree was completely ineffective in 
correcting Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.
    I am a computer programmer by profession. In my opinion, the 
actions of Microsoft do far more harm than good in the industry, 
stifling creativity and alternatives, while foisting second-rate 
software on the population through their operating system monopoly. 
I beg you to reconsider the settlement terms in the anti-trust case.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Edward Liu



MTC-00025357

From: Darcy James Argue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    As a concerned computer user, I would like to object to the 
proposed final judgment in United States v. Microsoft. In my 
opinion, Microsoft has reaped the rewards of years of abusive, 
illegal, monopolistic practices, and is being let off with a light 
tap on the wrist. This proposed settlement will not end Microsoft's 
anti-competitive conduct and does nothing to effectively penalize 
the company for damage already done.
    Only penalties commensurate with the extraordinary scale 
Microsoft's abuses-- including, possibly, the breakup of the 
company--coupled with strong regulation to prevent further 
monopolistic practices will restore fairness and competitiveness to 
the Intel-compatible OS market.
    Sincerely,
    Darcy James Argue
    [email protected]
    Boston MA



MTC-00025358

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Donna Gast
    511 Lamp Post Lane
    Camp Hill, PA 17011



MTC-00025359

From: W. B. Hackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    PLEASE SETTLE. END THE MATTER.
    My beloved Uncle Sam appears to me (and to many others both in 
the United States and abroad) to be caught up in time-consuming, 
very expensive, arguing back and forth. That sort of involvement is 
counter-productive for all of us.
    Microsoft has made enormous contribution to the economy of the 
United States. Please consider and be as fair and just as possible, 
but please settle. Please end the whole matter. Please try to do it 
now.
    Godspeed!
    Bill Hackett



MTC-00025360

From: Dan Dougherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have been following the Microsoft litigation for some time 
now. And now I see some states want to continue this litigation. How 
long does the public have to put up with this?
    A company like Microsoft, that has done so much for this 
country, has been punished enough.
    They have agreed to many concessions and have gone out of their 
way to correct what others have acussed them of doing.
    Please do everything you can to bring this matter to a close and 
allow Microsoft to get back to what they do best and that is to help 
keep this country in the forefront of technology. They are very good 
at that.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Dougherty, Ret SgtMaj USMC
    207 Pineview Rd Jacksonville, NC 28546
    Home of Camp Lejeune



MTC-00025361

From: Belcou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
P.O. Box13148
Burton, WA 98013
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Now that an agreement has been reached, I ask you to approve the 
settlement in the Microsoft case. The previous break-up attempt 
seemed to arise from a personality clash during the early stages of 
this case; however, companies should not be dismantled for such 
reasons. This recent, more balanced solution should stand.
    Microsoft may have been involved in very aggressive marketing 
techniques, but the company really deserves more appreciation for 
all the great things it has accomplished for the new economy. The 
bottom line is that the competition has been weak, and controversial 
issues--such as bundling features--are actually very 
convenient. Upon reflection, the deal that has been worked out with 
the help of a court mediator seems quite reasonable.
    If this plan can proceed, industry rivals will have plenty of 
chances to gain market share. For instance, competitors will benefit 
from increased flexibility in adding or removing Microsoft software 
from the Windows operating system, and they will have access to its 
internal code. Please accept the proposed terms and let the free 
market decide the rest.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    James Pappin

[[Page 27625]]



MTC-00025361--0002



MTC-00025362

From: Justin Aichele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am submitting my comments for the Microsoft Anti-trust case. 
During this case, the evidence that I saw clearly demonstrated that 
Microsoft tried to destroy competitors like Sun and Apple and 
Netscape and increase their market share underhandedly rather than 
by trying to make the better product and win customers by their own 
choices. This evidence is crystal clear according to what I saw on 
the internet that was posted by major news organizations who were 
covering the case.
    Personally, I don't necessarily have a problem with a company 
dominating a particular market or industry. In conversations with 
friends, I compare Microsoft to Cisco. Cisco has almost as much 
market share for networking equipment as Microsoft does for 
operating systems. In fact, 3Com gave up their core switch market 
because they could not compete with Cisco. I've personally dealt 
with both Microsoft and Cisco as a customer and as a technician. The 
difference is this: Cisco listens to their customers and doesn't try 
to force them into making decisions they don't want to make. They 
got to number 1 because they built a better product. It is usually 
priced higher, but the quality matches the price. As a whole, Cisco 
cares about their customers and doesn't try to dictate to them how 
things are gonna be done. It doesn't try to exert too much control 
and take away free choice. Based on Microsoft's recent licensing 
schemes, it sure seems like Microsoft would love to take away choice 
from people. They want a revenue stream when they want it and if it 
doesn't happen that way, then they will penalize people by not 
allowing them to upgrade for reasonable prices. Microsoft to me 
displays intense arrogance that has basically gone unchecked. They 
have something to leverage, though, otherwise people would have left 
a long time ago. I think that for the health of computing in 
general, they should be split up. I think a ton of new products 
would emerge if it was split up. Microsoft wants total control of 
things and they mask that as services. Services are great to offer, 
but they become chains when there's no other option. Microsoft wants 
to eliminate options from people and they have not done a darn thing 
to earn my trust. I would never trust them with my financial 
information on one of their servers. It's my info and it'll stay 
that way.
    The bottom line is that this company has grown to be huge in 
both legitimate ways and in illegitimate ways. Their recent behavior 
shows that they would love to continue to leverage their control in 
unethical ways. Split them up and then let's see what happens. The 
world will recover, and will probably thrive if you guys would stand 
up to this mega-company and show them that US laws are put into 
place for a reason.
    Hope this helps.
    Justin Aichele
    ``He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain 
what he cannot lose``--Jim Eliot, missionary to Ecuador.



MTC-00025363

From: Reg Diodati
To: Microsoft ATR Date 1/25/02 7:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen and Ladies,
    I believe Microsoft should be allowed to abide by the terms of 
the settlement, and any further action would be designed to destroy 
the company, doing great harm not only to the US economy but perhaps 
the world's. The only organizations to be satisfied would be those 
opposing the existence of Microsoft. They, of course, were no better 
at wanting to do what Microsoft has accomplished, but simply were 
not as successful.
    Reginald R. Diodati
    Troy, PA



MTC-00025364

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I join with many friends who welcome settlement of this 
extremely complex and very costly case. Just about when we average 
folks are sighing, ``At last!'' , along comes AOL with 
another suit! I hope the highly skilled people at Microsoft , AOL, 
and other high-Tech companies will focus on innovation and service, 
rather than entangling everyone in litigation.
    I've continued to be an AOL subscriber, because of relatively 
simple access to information & communication--& I can 
simply NOT choose chat, celebs, movie ratings, ``instant 
savings'' offers, etc. I would expect a top-rated provider to 
be bright enough to invest in ongoing service improvements, rather 
than assuring wealth for attorneys--at tax-payers'' 
expense. I'll probably continue to use AOL, hoping they lighten 
up--and brighten up. Users of the remarkable and innovative 
technology now available do have the privilege of choosing products 
and services suited to their needs. I believe most of us do not feel 
trapped by one company or another. We appreciate the Department of 
Justice efforts to get this monstrous distraction settled!
    Grace Allen



MTC-00025365

From: Clyde w. Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement !
    Hi ! I hope this settlement achieved between Microsoft the 
Deptartment of Justice and abipartisan group of State Attorneys 
General is indeed settled in the public interest !
    Thank You !
    Clyde W. Butler
    14701 Dohoney Rd .
    Defiance , Ohio 43512-8709
    cwmjb@ defnet.com



MTC-00025366

From: Bonnie (038) Cleve Svetlik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the DOJ is knuckling under to big business and that 
the proposed settlement is nothing more than selling out the 
Citizens of the USA to Microsoft.
    I strongly urge continued litigation such as the States who have 
a spine have done.
    Mr.. Cleve Svetlik
    2545 Brainard Road
    Pepper Pike, Ohio 44124



MTC-00025367

From: Norman Chapman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:34pm
Subject: Justice Dept. Agreement
    Gentlemen:
    It is very distressing to see the continued efforts of 
competitors of Microsoft trying to destroy efforts of the Justice 
Dept. and Microsoft in having reached an agreement that is fair and 
workable.
    This latest move on the part of AOL is no more than another 
attempt to influence both public thinking and the legal system in 
continuing efforts to punish Microsoft until it is reduced to a 
company unable to provide the quality of software and services which 
have served this country so well. It is abhorrent to think that 
companies such as AOL, Sun, Oracle and others have continued to 
resort to attempts to defeat competition by litigation instead of 
the much needed innovation to provide to the American public as well 
as the rest of the world continued improvements in the quality of 
computer software and other related components. Our family is 
pleased with the possibilities that your efforts along with those of 
Microsoft will result in the removal of further litigation and allow 
both Microsoft and its competitors to re-engage in the job of 
developing and delivering the world's finest technology.
    Sincerely,
    Norman & Isabella Chapman
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025368

From: Don M. Weber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:21pm
Subject: Proposed settlement
    I am infavor of the compromised settlement agreement with 
Microsoft.
    Thank you
    Don M. Weber,Retired in Missouri



MTC-00025369

From: Jerry Spencer Mings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust
    From what I've read, the judgment against MS is more of a reward 
than a punishment.
    My first home computer was handbuilt 6800 from a kit (SwTP) and 
used an ASR33 teletype with punched paper tape as the sole offline 
storage. Eventually the system was maxed out at 32 kilobytes of 
pseudo-static RAM.
    I remember vacationing in Silicon Valley and lunching with the 
author of Tiny BASIC. Bill Gates became a hero for releasing 4K (and 
later 8K) BASIC. Later the original IBM PC was released under a 
disingenuous marketing plan claiming the 8-bit 8088 microprocessor 
as being a 16-bit system and hijacking the acronym PC. The home

[[Page 27626]]

computing comunity was in large part outraged, but business lived 
and died by the aphorism ``Nobody ever got fired for buying 
IBM.'' At the time there were several 6800 based home computer 
systems running UNIX variant operating systems that failed against 
the tidal wave of EYE-BEE-EM.
    Then, somehow, the IBM PC design opened up to independent 
manufacturers and the hardware market exploded once they discovered 
to their amazement that the public wanted clones and not 
compatibles.
    Now we reach the point where I gave in and bought a compatible 
because: 1) It's what they were using at work. 2) There was a LOT of 
free or cheap software out there.
    Then--
    I had to upgrade to DOS 3.1 because it was more reliable and 
fixed the bugs from the previous release.
    I had to upgrade to DOS 3.2 because it was more reliable and 
fixed the bugs from the previous release.
    I had to upgrade to Windows 3.2 because it was more reliable and 
fixed the bugs from the previous release.
    I had to upgrade to Windows 95 because it was intergrated and 
more reliable and fixed the bugs from the previous release and the 
cheap printers required it and it came with my new faster computer 
because the new programs were untollerably slow.
    I had to upgrade to Windows 98 because it was more reliable and 
fixed the bugs from the previous release and the cheap scanners 
required it. IBM was no friend--I bought OS/2 and OS/2 warp 3.
    Apple was no friend with their proprietary (overpriced) hardware 
and software - I had an Apple IIe and the joke was ``After you 
had to buy the entire library of documentation (each manual referred 
you to another manual) for another $50 you got Steve Job's home 
number.''
    I don't have a reasonable solution (I favor breaking MS into a 
thousand pieces and refunding all Windows [another hijacked name] 
upgrade fees), but suggest you contact Richard M. Stallman at http:/
/www.fsf.org as his is the loudest sanest voice in the wilderness.
    Richard Balding



MTC-00025370

From: Loren Shirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:37pm
Subject: Settlement
    I agree with the settlement.
    Loren Shirk
    188 Las Lomas Rd.
    Duarte, CA 91010



MTC-00025371

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The case was not justified in the first place.
    Why is it the roll of Big Government to punish success because 
competetion complains?
    This Country and all Americans can be proud and thankful for the 
inovation of Mirosoft and Bill Gates.
    Sincerely,
    Ken Keller



MTC-00025372

From: Steven Ohmert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my opinion that the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft antitrust case be accepted. I believe the remedies 
are sufficient. It is time for this issue to be done with. The 
uncertainty and disruption this case has caused in the industry is a 
prime contributor and belweather for the downturn of the high tech 
industry in the stock market. The resolution of this matter will be 
a significant step in the recovery of initiative and innovation that 
has fallen away as a result of the uncertainties.
    I am not necessarily a cheerleader for Microsoft. Clearly, they 
have agressively and sometimes inappropriately used their market 
position as a bullying tactic. I believe there are lessons to be 
learned from this on all sides. I believe this is addressed in the 
settlement. Punitive actions proposed by opponents to the settlement 
are drastic, vengeful, and superficial. Acceptance of the settlement 
sends the clear message that the US government can be a fair and 
final arbitrator of such situations without being a blind 
executioner, and cuts short the use of the system as a forum for 
marketing public opinion and corporate images (by both sides).
    Thank you
    Steven Ohmert
    25731 78th Ave SW
    Vashon, WA 98070



MTC-00025373

From: Kevin Jerbi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed 
antitrust settlement with Microsoft.
    I believe that this settlement does nothing to prohibit 
Microsoft from continuing its predatory practices in information 
technology. This settlement has little provision to prevent 
Microsoft from asserting that any other applications are now part of 
their Windows operating systems, or from using their strong position 
in that market to thwart other innovations in different 
applications.
    I fully support the right of Microsoft to continue to develop 
its products and innovate as they see fit. However, as a confirmed 
monopoly, they have a specific responsibility to ensure that their 
monopoly does not illegally extend into emerging markets.
    I also fear the enforcement of this agreement. It should be 
recalled that Microsoft's brazen indifference to their 1995 consent 
decree began this particular case.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Kevin Jerbi
    Sr. Technical Support Specialist
    Targeted Genetics Corp.
    Seattle, Washington.
    I am a US citizen, and my address is 1125 NW 56th Street, 
Seattle, WA 98101.



MTC-00025374

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Anne Reiser
    47 Meritoria Drive
    East Williston, NY 11596-2004



MTC-00025375

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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.
    Sincerely,
    Joyce Foss
    731 S. Bluff St.
    South Beloit, IL 61080-2165



MTC-00025376

From: AVCS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:38pm
Subject: Miscrosoft Settlement
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
    Are we not living in America? Land of free enterprise, 
supposedly a capitalistic economic structure. It is time to leave 
Microsoft alone. Move on. Do something more constructive with your 
time. This is nothing more than a witch-hunt on this company.

[[Page 27627]]

    Rhonda Hubler
    949 Enders Road
    Halifax Pa 17032



MTC-00025377

From: Joe Cotey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement. The three top 
reasons are:
    1) It allows Microsoft to keep the financial and business 
advantages it gained by operating an illegal monopoly,
    2) It allows Microsoft to keep the distortions, such as Internet 
Explorer, Media Player, and others, it added to Windows in defiance 
of a court settlement,
    3) There is no provision to enforce any provisions of this 
settlement and Microsoft has a long history of doing as they please.
    It appears to me that it would be a shame if an industry 
standard operating system weren't a result of this action. Since 
Windows is the de-facto O. S., it seems reasonable to me to require 
Microsoft to release Windows to a standards organization such as 
IEEE, ANSI, or others. They have certainly recouped and profited 
adequately for their investment, and the loss of Intellectual 
Property to the public good seems to me a proper punishment.
    Oliver J. Cotey
    580 Ahwanee Ave., No. 58
    Sunnyvale, CA 94085
    tel: (408) 245-3487
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00025378

From: billo123 Owens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get off Microsofts ass.
    William E. Owens



MTC-00025379

From: David Bacher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Judge Kollar-Kotelly and the United States Department of 
Justice,
    I would like to comment on the proposed Microsoft Settlement as 
allowed under the Tunney Act.
    As background, I am a software engineer with 6 years of 
professional experience developing on Unix and Macintosh platforms.
    I have read the Findings of Fact and the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgement as posted on www.usdoj.gov and I have come to the 
conclusion that the Proposed Final Judgement does very little to 
limit Microsoft's acknowledged monopoly power. Impact on Open Source 
Software
    As a proponent of (and contributor to) open source software, I 
am concerned by the language that allows Microsoft to conceal APIs 
selectively from competitors simply because it does not agree with 
their business model.
    To quote Ralph Nader's open letter (http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/
rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html) ``What is surprising is that the 
US Department of Justice allowed Microsoft to place so many 
provisions in the agreement that can be used to undermine the free 
software movement. Note for example that under J.1 and J.2 of the 
proposed final order, Microsoft can withhold technical information 
from third parties on the grounds that Microsoft does not certify 
the ``authenticity and viability of its business,'' while 
at the same time it is describing the licensing system for Linux as 
a ``cancer'' that threatens the demise of both the 
intellectual property rights system and the future of research and 
development.''
    As the most powerful corporation in the software industry today, 
Microsoft should be forced to provide equal access to information to 
anyone, regardless of whether their business model meets Microsoft's 
approval.
    Failure to Punish Illegal Actions
    In addition, the proposed settlement does nothing to punish 
Microsoft's illegal monopolistic tactics. Microsoft has willingly 
abused its position in the marketplace and it should be punished. At 
the very least, it would be appropriate to fine Microsoft for their 
actions. In addition, Microsoft should be forced to divest itself of 
those technologies in which it has used its monopoly power to gain a 
controlling presence. Microsoft should not be allowed to reap the 
benefits of its illegal actions.
    Please consider my comments as a vote against the proposed 
settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    David Bacher
    1511 Addison St.
    Berkeley CA 94703
    [email protected]



MTC-00025380

From: john fruttero
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a very concerned citizen who vehemently disagrees with the 
Proposed Final Settlement.
    Thank you for your time and consideration of my view,
    John Fruttero; (626)391-8282; 1611 Brockton Avenue, 
#1, Los Angeles, CA 90025



MTC-00025381

From: Jumana Scoggins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to use this opportunity to express my support for the 
settlement reached last November between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. I believe it is time to move forward and 
allow both sides to concentrate on more important matters.
    The settlement is comprehensive and requires many changes on the 
part of Microsoft. For example, Microsoft has agreed to design 
future versions of Windows to provide a mechanism to make it easy 
for computer makers, consumers and software developers to promote 
non-Microsoft software within Windows. Consumers will have the 
freedom to easily add or remove access features built in to Windows 
or to non-Microsoft software. And to assure this and other 
provisions are met, Microsoft agreed to the formation of a technical 
committee that will monitor the company's business practices going 
forward.
    This case has been going on long enough. It is time for 
Microsoft to get back to competing and designing new software. And 
it is time for the government to use taxpayer money on more urgent 
matters like stimulating the economy.
    Sincerely,
    Jumana Scoggins



MTC-00025382

From: Frank J Gombos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very disturb that you want to punish successful companies 
like Microsoft.
    They delive superb product and at superb prices.
    This is a communist method, to punish successful people.
    Sicerely,
    Frank Gombos



MTC-00025383

From: Carlin H Freeberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:48pm
Subject: Settlement
    Go get ``em! M'Soft is as guilty as sin and their proposed 
settlement is nothing more than another devious scheme to leverage 
themselves into the schools/public agencies, thereby increasing 
users'' dependency on M'Soft products. Hang in there, don't let 
M'Soft's endless appeals wear down the quest for justice.



MTC-00025384

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is doing anticompetitive things to keep applications 
on its platforms. One example is OpenGL and DirectX. OpenGL and 
DirectX are two APIs that compete with each other. These API's are 
heavily used in 3D games a market aimed at young people. As of now 
Microsoft suports OpenGL in it's operating systems, but Microsoft 
could at its own discretion decide to no longer support OpenGL this 
would force companies to abandon OpenGL to go in favor of DirectX. 
Because Microsoft owns DirectX they can keep other platforms from 
using it.



MTC-00025385

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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

[[Page 27628]]

Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly 
harmed by Microsoft: the computer user. This is just another method 
for states to get free money, and a terrible precedent for the 
future, not only in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of 
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 DeFoy
    HCR 76 Box 229U
    Camdenton, MO 65020



MTC-00025388

From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Eric Rasmussen
    97 Bartlett Place
    Brooklyn, NY 11229-6361



MTC-00025389

From: Chuck and Deanna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:50pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Sirs: Why you want to continue to badger a entrepreneurial 
company is beyond me! They have made continuous efforts to settle 
this yet you continue. Our nation could stand to have it's time and 
funds spent on people and things that are trying to destroy our 
country instead of a company that has been helping education, 
economy, and free enterprise. Wake up.



MTC-00025390

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:51pm
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 Stoeker
    Ridge Road
    Rt 15 Box 3078
    Lake City, FL 32024-8907



MTC-00025391

From: Paul Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:43pm
Subject: my thoghts on this whole ridicuous thing
    Follow the money is a good rule to follow and when I saw the AG 
of I think Mass. answer a question about the legal costs I knew I 
had it pegged. He said we don't worry about legal costs as Microsoft 
has to pay all of them because of the original finding. So they are 
going to work this forevermore. What a shame. We all know who is 
going to pay.
    It also seems to me that the real imploding of the tech sector 
happenened just after the Clinton folks filled their legal actions. 
I liked Microsoft Windows and bought some stock years ago and it 
went right up over $100 and the attack by Clinton put my stock right 
in the tank and then the others started going with it. I honestly 
think it was the ``trigger''. Let the statisticians prove 
me right or wrong.
    All along I kept wondering what it was all about. I liked 
Netscape and had it on my computer and used it. I liked Real Player 
for a while and used it also. Then I tried Media Player and 
switched. Whose fault?
    When I went on cable access they started me on Internet Explorer 
and I found I liked it better then Netscape and now use it. Netscape 
is still on my computer in case I ever want to use it. Whose fault 
is this?
    So all these setlements are doing absolutely nothing for me 
except trash my stock value. Pleas cease and desist and do something 
constructive.
    Paul Adams
    466 W San Ramon #101 Fresno, Ca 93704



MTC-00025392

From: henrywpark
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/25/02 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea because it 
does not address truly preventing Microsoft from leveraging its 
operating system into other markets.
    Henry Park
    [email protected]



MTC-00025393

From: JA Stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:54pm
Subject:
    Please let Microsoft continue to serve with easier programs to 
use for those of us that are computers users- but not compute 
brains. Their programs make it easier-and if it wasn't for their 
programs, we'd have never purchased a computers. Windows is great.
    Thank you.
    J.A. Stephens



MTC-00025394

From: John Swanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Department of Justice should settle the Microsoft case as 
previously agreed by the parties. The States that continue to fight 
should be barred from using all Microsoft products and be required 
to use the inferior products. John Swanson Renton, WA



MTC-00025395

From: Daly Patrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am writing to let you know that in my opinion the proposed 
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice is a 
travesty. Microsoft's predatory behavior represents a profound 
threat to the health not only of the technology sector, in which I 
work, but of US industry as a whole, and of the United States 
itself.
    If Microsoft can dictate its terms to the US government, who is 
it that really governs? I urge you to reinstate the eminently 
fitting decision of Justice Jackson, and break the company up so as 
to separate the ownership of the operating system from that of the 
desktop applications.
    Patrick Daly
    1020 Louise Street
    Menlo Park, CA 94025



MTC-00025396

From: WARREN POMPEI
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:55pm
Subject: ANTITRUST SETTLEMENT
    Now is the time to finalize the settlement between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft. As the President of the United States has 
stated.....``we want to encourage innovation, not 
regulation''. The country has been in a steady economic decline 
for nearly two years since the first verdict was issued by Judge 
Jackson. Since then it has been an enormous drain on all parties 
involved.....especially this country. I for one, believe that this 
issue was ill conceived since the beginning. With the September 
11th, 2001 terrorist attack, we, the voting public, are quickly 
learning that there are far more serious issues for us to be 
focusing on. I was never one to be very ``politically 
interested'', but after watching how some of our elected 
officials have been handling themselves during this process, from 
this day forward I intend to take my vote far more seriously when it 
comes to casting it for political candidates seeking election to 
public office.
    Warren R. Pompei
    [email protected]



MTC-00025397

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 27629]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that it is in the best interest of the US consumer 
that the Department of Justice proposed antitrust settlement with 9 
states and Microsoft be accepted.
    Richard M. Rheinhardt
    1001 Sierra Blanca Ct.
    Lady Lake, FL 32159



MTC-00025398

From: Jeff Breitner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
8732 Sumpter Road
Maybee, MI 48159
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 writing to express my displeasure with the proposed 
settlement between Microsoft and the USDOJ for Microsoft's proven 
illegal activities. In the name of brevity, I'll keep my letter to 
three main points. First, how the proposed ``opening'' of 
API's, hooks and other areas of Microsoft products will not benefit 
other companies. I'll also note how Microsoft's acquiescence to 
allow computer manufacturers to modify the default installation of 
Windows on their computers isn't the alleged bargain. And finally, 
the main sticking point in the whole settlement is the federal 
government's seemingly blind-eye to the billions of dollars of 
revenue realized through Microsoft's crimes.
    The proposed settlement would allow others access to inside 
information to Microsoft's API's. While this may seem a fitting way 
to re-introduce competition in the software industry, the language 
used in the settlement makes it clear that Microsoft still has a 
significant amount of control over what is actually divulged. The 
language states that Microsoft will have the ability to determine 
the suitability of the recipient of this type of information. Within 
the proposed settlement, there is little detail of who would be 
qualified and therefore it appears that those able to receive 
information on API's, hooks and software information is totally 
arbitrary and subject to the final review of Microsoft.
    Further disturbing is the ability of Microsoft to have a 
unilateral veto of all requests of this type of information under 
the guise of software security. Simply put, Microsoft could say that 
the information could not be provided because it would constitute a 
security compromise of their products.
    Open-source operating systems such as Linux or FreeBSD have 
lived with this situation for over 10 years and have used it to 
their benefit. Consequently, the ability to control API information 
as a security precaution seems to be nothing more than one way to 
slow or stop the dissemination of this information.
    Armed with the ability to ``lock-down'' the API's and 
the Windows system itself, Microsoft could conceivably use this 
settlement as a way to thwart interoperability between Windows 
products and competing operating systems. Through crafty use of 
frequent Windows updates and patches, Microsoft could simply change 
its operating code to eliminate products such as Samba, and then 
point to this settlement as the permission to do so. Since it would 
be termed a ``security'' issue, the changes would remain 
within Microsoft's confidence, and the proposed settlement itself is 
used as a tool to continue Microsoft's monopoly.
    Computer manufacturers and OEMs have complained bitterly over 
Microsoft's insistence that the appearance of Windows not be 
modified on personal computers. The settlement gives OEMs 
significant abilities to bundle products with the sale of the 
computer and operating system. While this certainly appears to be 
for the benefit of the consumer, it is blanket authorization for 
Microsoft to continue to use the monopoly on the desktop operating 
system to extend into other areas. Already with WindowsXP, Microsoft 
is demonstrating what would happen with this new-found freedom. 
Preferential treatment (if not outright advertising) for Microsoft 
properties exists for Internet connectivity, chat, instant messaging 
and other services whenever the consumer accesses these services 
through WindowsXP. This settlement is the government's authorization 
that Microsoft can use the desktop to continue to promote or even 
force consumers to use Microsoft services (e.g. Microsoft Passport), 
ostensibly because the OEMs are allowed to bundle their own 
services. Language in the settlement is absent that states how this 
bundling and presentation is to occur, which gives Microsoft 
incredible leverage over its competition.
    The major point I have against this proposed settlement is the 
ill-gotten gains from Microsoft's abuse of their operating system 
monopoly. Simply put, I find it reprehensible that anyone associated 
with the justice department would consider letting Microsoft keep 
one penny of the billions of dollars raised through these abuses. 
The message the settlement sends is one of ``crime doesn't pay 
unless you happen to be a large politically active corporation, then 
it pays handsomely''. This is a terribly disturbing message 
considering the recent Enron debacle. Microsoft acted unfairly, 
engaged in illegal business activities, economically harmed the 
consumer and made billions of dollars doing it. They should be 
penalized and the penalty should commensurate with their earnings 
and worth.
    As a personal note, when the DOJ started their lawsuit against 
Microsoft, I was vehemently against it. It was Microsoft's own 
behavior within the trial and it's business practices during and 
subsequent to the trial that has changed my opinion of the company. 
They are a predatory company that would not hesitate to use any 
method for their profit. Their practices are deeply rooted within 
the company culture, and it is my belief that the only way to make 
this company ``fly-right'' is to bring them back to 
reality with the penalties that would be exacted upon me if I had 
stolen billions of dollars.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey Breitner



MTC-00025399

From: Ross, Jason
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i am opposed to the proposed antitrust settlement against 
microsoft. the penalties for manhanling the entire industry are far 
from sufficient. If the USA is at all concerned about the security 
of it's digital communication, they have a vested interest in 
diversifying the computing landscape. The proposed settlement does 
little to accomplish this, or keep microsoft from continuing in its 
business practises which led to the monopoly verdice in the first 
place.
    thanks for your time.
    Jason ``olo'' Ross



MTC-00025400

From: pogo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:59pm
Subject: microsoft puiblic comments
    There are too many things on the economic plate and the 
Microsoft decision should be made immediately.
    Walter Robinson
    pogo@gnt,net



MTC-00025401

From: David McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the Microsoft settlement as proposed. I believe 
that it is fair and just. Microsoft delivers a fine product at a 
very attractive price. I worked in the computer business for 30 
years prior to retirement (not with Microsoft) and Operating systems 
were never so powerful and, imagine, available at only $ 99.
    Ever since the action against Microsoft, the entire Technical 
stock market has been in the tank.
    Let's accept this and do what is right for America.
    Yes, we do vote.
    David McDonald (303) 818-4999
    MENU Corp www.menucorp.com
    6525 Gunpark Dr., Ste 370-299
    Boulder, CO 80301
    (303) 530-4986 Fax (303) 530-0983



MTC-00025402

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
3919 Fait Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21224
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We are writing you today to express our opinion in regards to 
the Microsoft settlement that was reached in November. We feel that 
this settlement is fair and reasonable, and we are anxious to see 
this

[[Page 27630]]

dispute resolved. We feel this settlement will serve in the best 
public interest.
    This settlement was reached after extensive negotiations. 
Microsoft has agreed to all terms and conditions of this agreement, 
including disclosing information about certain internal interfaces 
in Windows and any protocols implemented in Windows. Microsoft has 
also agreed to license its Windows operating system products to the 
20 largest computer makers on identical terms and conditions.
    This settlement will benefit the economy, the industry, and 
consumers. Please support this settlement so our precious resources 
can be devoted to more productive causes. Thank you for your 
support.
    Sincerely,
    Emily & Elmer Hennigan



MTC-00025403

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    I am an independent critic of the Microsoft Settlement. As a 
resident of Massachusetts, and a Computer Scientist, I support MA 
Attorney General O'Reilly's objection to the settlement.
    My objection centers around the ``unavailability'' of 
other browsers because of the ``interweavability'' of 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which comes packaged with Microsoft's 
Operating Systems, that is, Windows 95,98, ME and now XP.
    The built-in compatibility inherent in the Microsoft browser is 
conspicuously, by design, missing in all the browsers and cause 
many, many problems and inconvenience when you want to use Netscape 
or AOL or any other browser.
    My real PET PEEVE--AOL is not completely free of its own 
set of problems and exclusionary practices that warrant your 
scrutiny.
    Bill Roache, CAGS
    Computer Scientist
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025404

From: Lawrence Neumann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.''
    Enough is enough, stop any further action against Microsoft. The 
continuation of this vendetta by some competitors must stop.
    Lawrence A Neumann
    33 Blue Ridge Drive
    Trumbull CT 06611-4001
    (203) 377 1329
    [email protected]



MTC-00025405

From: Gerald Vidal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Aloha from the island of Oahu!
    The case against Microsoft should be dismissed all together: 
Look who is complaining, is it the consumers or special interest who 
uses the law to get ahead in market share (the earning of money). 
Look who owns Netscape browser(not Microsoft,) look who owns AOL 
browser (not Microsoft,) and now look what is happening to Netscape 
and where it is going as a browser and why (not because of Micosoft, 
but because one owner with two browsers, Netscape and AOL. Microsoft 
should move as fast as possible to bring the American people 
software that will better our lives, and not be held back because of 
mis-use of the Justice in our government.
    ``The law (officially called the Tunney Act) requires a 
public comment period between now and January 28th after which the 
District Court will determine whether the settlement is in the 
?public interest.?
    Unfortunately, a few special interests are attempting to use 
this review period to derail the settlement and prolong this 
litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The last 
thing the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits 
only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.''
    Mahalo,
    Gerald Vidal
    PO Box 208-MS
    Pearl City, HI 96782-0208



MTC-00025406

From: tim jennings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is an unrepentant felon. Who can doubt that they will 
continue their illegal, destructive practices, unless they are dealt 
with very severely indeed. Everything they have said, everything 
they have done, reinforces this conclusion.
    Let's see some law and order where it counts!
    Tim Jennings
    Jennings and Ponder * World Tales
    Sheefra * Celtic Music
    Vermont Storytelling Festival
    Eastern Coyote Productions
    PO Box 1601 Burlington VT 05402
    http://www.folktale.net
    [email protected]



MTC-00025407

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Enough is enough! The Dept of Justice has a fair and tough 
settlement with Microsoft which will allow the country to go forward 
with more important things.
    It is not necessary to make the lawyers wealthy by carrying on 
this suit unnecessarily.
    Blanche Johnson



MTC-00025408

From: Gus Galeano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    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

[[Page 27631]]

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,
    Gus Galeano, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Graphic Designer



MTC-00025409

From: Jason Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:06pm
Subject: Comments for the Federal Register
Renata Hesse,
    Is it a crime to maintain a monopoly? Yes it is. Microsoft has 
already been found in violation. The question now is a question of 
just punishment. How does the United States of America take 
appropriate actions to end the Microsoft monopolies and prevent them 
from recurring?
    The proposed settlement does not begin to remedy the antitrust 
violations for which Microsoft has been found culpable. This is the 
penalty phase of the case and yet there are no penalties outlined in 
the settlement. In fact, the proposed settlement arguably would 
advance the capabilities of Microsoft's monopolies by allowing the 
corporation to maintain them. Furthermore, that precedent could 
weaken antitrust law. What other corporations would take advantage 
of Microsoft's clean break in future cases?
    A just penalty would somehow prevent Microsoft from extending 
its monopoly. For example Microsoft products should be optional when 
purchasing new computers. That way consumers who do not wish to 
purchase those products are not forced to do so. This also means 
that for the price differential between a new computer with 
Microsoft software and one without, the computer seller must offer 
the software without the computer. Then and only then can 
competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
    The specifications of Microsoft's present and future file 
formats must be made public, so that files created with Microsoft 
applications, whether they be documents or audio-visual media, may 
be read by programs from other makers, on Microsoft's and other 
operating systems. This is in addition to opening the Windows API 
(application program interface).
    Any and all Microsoft networking protocols must be published in 
full and approved by an independent network protocol body (ISO, 
International Standards Organization). This would prevent Microsoft 
from seizing de facto control of the Internet.
    This is indeed an issue of national interest. Strength in 
diversity is a biological reality that translates well to this 
scenario. It has been suggested by the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies that the use of Microsoft software actually 
poses a risk to national security. Consider how that risk could 
increase if there is not a careful and deliberate penalty imposed 
upon Microsoft for its transgressions. By creating a monopoly 
Microsoft has strengthened itself and weakened its competitors. But 
but the bigger it grows, the greater the risk to national interest.
    -J



MTC-00025410

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:06pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw
Leo G. Kivell
48060 Brewster Court
Plymouth, MI 48170
January16,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Attorney General:
    I am asking that you settle your ongoing case against Microsoft. 
My faith in antitrust programs has been reduced as a result of this 
and past trials.
    I worked for Ford at the dawn of the technology age, and we had 
a different computer system for practically each division. The 
ability to interact was limited by a lack of common standard, which 
ends up costing consumers more. Microsoft should not be punished for 
offering consumers the opportunity to embrace and build on such a 
standard. The concessions Microsoft is making in the settlement it 
reached with your office go further than the ones other companies in 
similar situations have made, and they even encompass issues never 
addressed in the original lawsuit.
    I urge you to end all litigation against Microsoft and to settle 
the antitrust case as quickly as possible. Thank you.
    Sincerely
    Leo Kivell



MTC-00025411

From: Dr. Homer L. Ontman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is my opinion that the settlement made by Microsoft is a fair 
one and additional litigation would ill-serve the public and 
therefore should not continue.



MTC-00025412

From: Jack Blalock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Who It May Concern,
    When will this all end? When will stop spending the taxpayer's 
money with all of these ridiculous court proceedings against the one 
company that seems to make a difference in this country?
    The jobs, service, and donations that Microsoft and its 
employees give to this country are second to none. How can we 
continue to beat the dead horse about what should be allowed into an 
operating system for consumers? The product's ease-of-use and 
integration of products only benefits the users of software users 
around the world.
    Let's get on with life! Enough of all this!
    Jack Blalock
    Charlotte, NC



MTC-00025413

From: Paul Guppy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    January 25, 2002
To: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
c/o Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ?D? Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC, 20530
    Attn: Renata B. Hesse
    Subject: Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft 
Case.
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly
    We respectfully encourage you to accept the proposed settlement 
in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. We are an association of 
independent, state-based, non-partisan policy research groups 
dedicated to promoting free markets and open competition.
    This settlement reflects a triumph of the rule of law. It is a 
perfect map of remedies laid alongside the areas where the Appeals 
Court found against Microsoft. Certain Microsoft competitors and 
other critics of the proposed settlement make the core of their 
objections a call for more stringent restrictions, ranging from 
prohibition on what they call ?product tying? to a breakup of the 
company. More extreme critics complain that the remedies do not 
address products that were not even part of the case.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court which 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals 
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for 
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented 
monopoly abuse. The court went further to

[[Page 27632]]

state that any new burden of proof for ``tying'' would be 
immense. The court also rejected the breakup order and made it clear 
such an order moving forward would be difficult to sustain given the 
court ``drastically altered [i.e., reduced] the scope of 
Microsoft's liability.''
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation ? the Department of Justice 
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
    Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely 
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, 
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of 
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible 
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, 
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
    In our view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the behavior in question.
    Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal 
throughout American industry and the country as a whole that in the 
United States rule of law is alive and well--that defendants 
face remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond 
this settlement would represent a victory for those who do not seek 
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a 
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law 
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would 
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely 
conduct business will be applied fairly.
    As leaders in advancing free market competition in our 
respective states we believe this settlement serves the best 
interests of the American public. It fairly resolves a complex and 
burdensome anti-trust case that is having severe impacts far beyond 
one company, a case that is acting as a drag on one of the most 
vibrant sectors of our economy. Settlement of this case will free 
the high-technology industry to put its fullest efforts into 
innovation and creativity, and will spur competition in a way that 
will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Signed,*
    Daniel Mead Smith ? President
    Washington Policy Center
    4025 Delridge Way, S.W.
    Suite 210
    Seattle, WA 98106
    Steve Buckstein ? President
    Cascade Policy Institute
    813 SW Alder
    Suite 450
    Portland, Oregon 97205
    John McClaughry ? President
    Ethan Allen Institute
    4836 Kirby Mountain Road
    Concord, VT 05824
    Bob Williams
    President
    Evergreen Freedom Foundation
    P.O. Box 552
    Olympia, WA 98507
    T. Rogers Wade ? President and CEO
    Georgia Public Policy Foundation
    6100 Lake Forrest Drive
    Suite 110
    Atlanta, GA 30328
    David Kopel ? Director
    Center on the Digital Economy
    The Heartland Institute
    19 South LaSalle
    Suite 903
    Chicago, IL 60603
    Jon Caldara ? President
    Independence Institute
    14142 Denver West Parkway
    Suite 185
    Golden, CO 80401
    Forest Thigpen
    Mississippi Policy Institute
    Don Racheter ? President
    Public Interest Institute
    600 North Jackson Street
    Mount Pleasant, IA 52641
    Gerry Dickinson ? Vice President for Policy
    South Carolina Policy Council Education Foundation
    1323 Pendleton Street
    Columbia, S.C. 29201
    Jeff Judson ? President and CEO
    Texas Public Policy Foundation
    8122 Datapoint
    Suite 326
    San Antonio, TX 78229
    *State Policy Network group affiliations are listed for 
identification purposes only.
    Founded in 1992, the State Policy Network (SPN) is an 
association of independent, non-profit, state-based policy research 
groups dedicated to promoting free markets and open competition.



MTC-00025414

From: Adrian Gill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft and the downfall of BeOS
    Dear Sir, One of the reasons for the failure of BeOS, was the 
inability to induce OEMs to provide true dual-boot machines. Be Inc 
adopted a non-confrontational approach, seeking to provide a Windows 
alternative rather than a replacement. It later produced a version 
that boots from inside Windows, and it even offered OEMs BeOS for 
free.
    However, Microsoft OEM contracts forbid a visible dual-boot 
option, and although OEMs were keen to differentiate themselves by 
offering Be's ``Media OS'' as an alternative, they risked 
breaching the OEM agreements.
    When Hitachi took up the challenge, it was obliged to ship a 
machine that could --only-- boot Windows. It couldn't 
provide one-click access to activate the sleeper OS that was also 
included on the machine, and couldn't provide similar easy access to 
install the BeOS bootloader.
    Thank you for your time.
    Yours faithfully,
    A. Gill



MTC-00025415

From: sidesoft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    Why are we losing jobs across this country? Why are the stocks 
of technologies companies free-falling?
    The answer is rooted in this litigation. This crusade to 
increase the stature of a few Attorney General's has gone on to 
long. This delay has discouraged investors small and large from 
investing in the technology sector and brought the NASDAQ to 
historical lows. This effect is real and was predicted by leading 
economists at the onset of this litigation.
    The atmosphere around this and other corporate litigation has a 
discouraging effect and has created a capital shortage for growing 
companies resulting in a major decline in economic growth, earnings 
and most importantly jobs. Please send the Attorney Generals'' 
home to their states, stop wasting our tax dollars and stop the 
corporate litigation that robs capital needed for growth. As 
taxpayers, investors and consumers, we can ill afford this 
protection of our pocketbooks. This litigation has affected 
retirement funds, college funds and government income. And now our 
daily jobs are disappearing!
    We have recently witnessed the major corporate collapse of ENRON 
and the major losses to shareholders of this company. These 
shareholders have placed the deserving blame on the corporate 
officers of this company. We MSFT investors feel we have been 
wronged, but have little recourse since the major blame is with our 
government and specifically our state Attorney Generals.
    End your litigation crusade on corporate America and 
specifically ``end the Microsoft case'' so our stock 
markets can flourish and our economy can return to normal.
    A small investor from Iowa,
    Warren McKenna
    Kalona, IA



MTC-00025416

From: walter bogaardt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:1 lpm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software engineer and user of various computer operating 
systems, Unix, Windows, and Linux. I'd like to make my comments 
known about the Proposed final Judgment in United States v. 
Microsoft.
    The following is my observations and complaints about the DOJ's 
proposed settlement.
    If the proposed settlement is left as is consumers and 
developers will be held within the continual push of Microsoft 
propaganda and ideals. Some of these can be

[[Page 27633]]

detrimental to our scientific and academic communities.
    Even one of Microsoft execs have stated that Linux could stiffle 
innovation. If innovation is being stiffled it is by Microsoft. The 
scientific communitity as well as the United States government 
research centers have used linux to create ``cheaper'' 
alternative clusters of computers using Linux to create processing 
power as powerful as some super computers. Higher costs are not 
inovative. Doing more with less is inovating and cost saving.
    Microsoft would lead you to believe that innovation was created 
only by commercial business. Most of the technology we see today was 
created in schools by the academic community and by computer 
enthusiasts. The basic fundamental elements of the internet were 
designed to share information and not to horde the information for 
sale.
    We must not allow our schools education be dicated by one 
monopolistic entity. In so far as that our children are forced to 
learn only of Microsoft Windows OS and there by go into the 
workforce expousing and reenforceing microsoft os in the workplace 
and continuing the momentum of monopoly.
    Microsoft now has established product lifecycle for license 
availability and assisted support limits on their software. Now 
older versions of their software may no longer be supported by them.
    This thereby forces the users to purchase a newer version and 
because of the higher hardware demands of the software requires a 
user to buy a new PC when their current pc may work just fine. 
Software that is for sale should be continually serviced by the 
selling entity if the software continues to work for the user. This 
should be the cost of doing software business as a software company. 
Software and specifically Microsoft software has completely avoid 
all standards of product liability. If a car were to crash or break 
down as much as their ``inovative'' products do where 
would we all be now?
    The proposed final judgment by the DOJ is not sufficient in not 
only the intrest of the consumer, but those entities that must 
support computer technology in general. Software developers and IT 
technicians are constantly having to find solutions to problems that 
Microsoft technology constantly hides. From Application Programing 
Interface(API) changes to new network protocals and file formats.
    Take for instance Microsoft File formats for their word 
documents. In order to allow other software to read and successfully 
print or display the contents of this document the programer must 
``reverse'' engineer the information so that it can make 
sense in another program. This same policy by microsoft of hidding 
details from other companie's programers lead to the demis of 
Netscape. Does this mean the demise of WordPerfect, StarOffice, and 
other wordprocessing programs too? It must be stated that the API's 
that Microsoft uses to interface to its Windows OS and its 
Middleware (Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer) should be made more 
available to public developers.
    Microsoft is currently operating in a capacity in it has gone 
beyond the desktop OS environment and is assimilating B2B services 
with their .NET and Passport services. They continue to attack 
companies that they percieve as competitive such as Lindows, which 
is building a system on top of Linux that allows windows 
applications to install and run seemlessly. They have almost 
succeded in eliminating Java from the desktop and with .NET will try 
to eliminate Java from the server space as well.
    Microsoft should do business either as an OS vendor, or a break 
up of its middleware and server groups into separate entities. In 
this outside developers should be allowed free access to well 
document public API's in the windows OS so that they can perform 
their jobs, and provide consumers with alternative innovative 
products. This in turn reinvigorates the economy by establishing 
competition within business.
    As a software engineer and user of various computer operating 
systems, Unix,Windows, and Linux. I'd like to make my comments known 
about the Proposed final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft.
    The following is my observations and complaints about the DOJ's 
proposed settlement.
    If the proposed settlement is left as is consumers and 
developers will be held within the continual push of Microsoft 
propaganda and ideals. Some of these can be detrimental to our 
scientific and academic communities.
    Even one of Microsoft execs have stated that Linux could stiffle 
innovation. If innovation is being stiffled it is by Microsoft. The 
scientific communitity as well as the United States goverment 
research centers have used linux to create ``cheaper'' 
alternative clusters of computers using Linux to create processing 
power as powerful as some super computers. Higher costs are not 
inovative. Doing more with less is inovating and cost saving.
    Microsoft would lead you to believe that innovation was created 
only by commercial business. Most of the technology we see today was 
created in schools by the academic community and by computer 
enthusiasts. The basic fundamental elements of the internet were 
designed to share information and not to horde the information for 
sale.
    We must not allow our schools education be dicated by one 
monopolistic entity. In so far as that our children are forced to 
learn only of Microsoft Windows OS and there by go into the 
workforce expousing and reenforceing microsoft os in the workplace 
and continuing the momentum of monopoly.
    Microsoft now has established product lifecycle for license 
availability and assisted support limits on their software. Now 
older versions of their software may no longer be supported by them.
    This thereby forces the users to purchase a newer version and 
because of the higher hardware demands of the software requires a 
user to buy a new PC when their current pc may work just fine. 
Software that is for sale should be continually serviced by the 
selling entity if the software continues to work for the user. This 
should be the cost of doing software business as a software company. 
Software and specifically Microsoft software has completely avoid 
all standards of product liability. If a car were to crash or break 
down as much as their ``inovative'' products do where 
would we all be now? The proposed final judgment by the DOJ is not 
sufficient in not only the intrest of the consumer, but those 
entities that must support computer technology in general. Software 
developers and IT technicians are constantly having to find 
solutions to problems that Microsoft technology constantly hides. 
From Application Programing Interface(API) changes to new network 
protocals and file formats.
    Take for instance Microsoft File formats for their word 
documents. In order to allow other software to read and successfully 
print or display the contents of this document the programer must 
``reverse'' engineer the information so that it can make 
sense in another program. This same policy by microsoft of hidding 
details from other companie's programers lead to the demis of 
Netscape. Does this mean the demise of WordPerfect, StarOffice, and 
other wordprocessing programs too? It must be stated that the API's 
that Microsoft uses to interface to its Windows OS and its 
Middleware (Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer) should be made more 
available to public developers.
    Microsoft is currently operating in a capacity in it has gone 
beyond the desktop OS environment and is assimilating B2B services 
with their .NET and Passport services. They continue to attack 
companies that they percieve as competitive such as Lindows, which 
is building a system on top of Linux that allows windows 
applications to install and run seemlessly. They have almost 
succeded in eliminating Java from the desktop and with .NET will try 
to eliminate Java from the server space as well.
    Microsoft should do business either as an OS vendor, or a break 
up of its middleware and server groups into separate entities. In 
this outside developers should be allowed free access to well 
document public API's in the windows OS so that they can perform 
their jobs, and provide consumers with alternative innovative 
products. This in turn reinvigorates the economy by establishing 
competition within business.



MTC-00025417

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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 going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user.
    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 27634]]

technology, but all sorts of 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 Clark
    171 Ravenwood Blvd.
    Barnegat, NJ 08005-2205



MTC-00025418

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've followed this anti-trust case closely, and have read the 
proposed settlement. The only thing I have to say is this: Shame On 
You, DoJ, for selling out the trust of the taxpayers.



MTC-00025419

From: Warren F Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    There they go again! Here's what one writer, James K. Glassman, 
said: ``Instead of straightening out its business problems, AOL 
has decided to spend its time and effort filing lawsuits against 
tough competitors--a petty, distracting pursuit that won't help 
AOL or, for that matter, the U.S. economy, which depends on firms 
like Microsoft for the innovation necessary to bring about a 
technology revival.'' (http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/
techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-012302E)
    He also said about consumers that he ``can't understand how 
they're hurt by a business strategy that offers browsers for 
free.'' I have written several times to make the point that the 
only entities being hurt throughout this ridiculous fiasco are those 
incompetetent businesses--like Netscape-- which can't 
compete. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black! AOL, 
having bought Netscape for an obscene amount of money, is part of 
one of the largest communication trusts the world has ever known.
    This makes what Theodore Roosevelt faced a century ago seem like 
a walk in the park.
    I still say that the courts and politics should keep out of 
technological innovation. I know of no better way to guarantee this 
nation a mediocre future than to destroy the ability of companies to 
innovate.
    Settle this case and let's get on with the business of solving 
human problems through technological ingenuity and innovation.
    Sincerely yours,
    Warren F Taylor
    Porterville, CA



MTC-00025420

From: John Fodor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am completely opposed to the lawsuit against Microsoft that 
has been filed by AOL. I trully believe that AOL should focus on 
solving their own problems rather than filing frivolous lawsuits.
    I urge that the lawsuit be rejected.
    sincerely,
    John Fodor



MTC-00025421

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I think the proposed settlement on the microsoft antitrust act 
is a bad idea



MTC-00025422

From: Russell Gordon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get off of Microsofts back and let the consumers settle the 
dispute by what they buy.. Government has no business involving 
itself in private business....



MTC-00025423

From: Bud B. Kern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is long since time to get off the back of Microsoft and agree 
to the settlement as it stands. Microsoft has been good for our 
country by providing a means for many people to enjoy the 
technology. Those competitors who joined in this suit have not 
proven that they were damaged in any way. Please put an end to this 
suit and let Microsoft and the rest of the industry get on with the 
process and progress of doing business for the betterment of all of 
us.
    Harry B. and Dona Kern, Sierra Village, CA.



MTC-00025424

From: John Putnam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Without Microsoft...I wouldn't get paid...
    I want Microsoft to have the ability to continue down the path 
of innovation without interference from the government.
    John H Putnam



MTC-00025425

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough.
    Let everyone know that Clinton did wrong by trying to bring 
Microsoft down to their friends level. That did not help the 
economy. Lets move on and let the people choose Microsoft or if they 
are not happy with them they can start their own.
    Lydia Winkler



MTC-00025426

From: Bob Kerstetter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Summary: Diversity in OS's would end the plague of viruses, as 
diversity is difficult to attack. In the nation's security interest 
MS should be busted.
    At first I thought the lawsuit was a crock. I am not an MS 
product user or a detractor, but always thought Mr. Gates earned his 
bucks fair and square. But I really don't think so anymore. He 
basically copies and intimidates to do well. He is really afraid of 
face to face or shoulder to shoulder competition. He has copied the 
Apple OS time and again. He has spread lies about Open Source, as 
witnessed by the Halloween Papers. When Apple innovates something 
for an MS OS he makes it difficult to operate in Windows. When Apple 
comes up with an iMovie he makes a cheap copy. He has even copied 
the name of Mac OS X by calling his own cheap look alike XP, 
exploiting the confusion factor. He has also copied Apple Digital 
Hub concept. Finally, IE is too integrated into the MS OSes.
    MS is too big and monopolistic for the good of the community. 
Diversity in OS's would end the plague of viruses also, as diversity 
is difficult to attack. In the nation's security interest MS should 
be busted. Get it over. Just do it. Like this:
    Division One: Office Products.
    Division Two: OS
    Division Three: IE
    Division Four: Consumer Products
    Division Five: Games
    Division Six: Hardware as in X Box and Mouse.
    Six Divisions would be good.
    Also, make them pay Apple $2 Billion for stealing ideas: the 
look, the feel, the packaging of products.



MTC-00025427

From: JL Kottal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Hello,
    I am sadly disappointed in the provisions of the Microsoft 
Settlement. It would appear that the DOJ proposal abrogated 
completely any responsibility to recommend punishment of a company 
that was found guilty, not once but twice. In doing so, the DOJ has 
wasted a lot of the taxpayer's money on a court case and settlement 
that will do no justice to those who looked to the DOJ for it.
    There seems in the proposed settlement to be no punishment at 
all, and certainly nothing that would encourage Microsoft to change 
its business practices. In fact, since then, Microsoft has continued 
even more so its predatory practices: they have integrated Internet 
Explorer more tightly into their Windows operating system; their 
operating system plans for the future named .Net push much more 
dependency upon using their products; and their latest offering, 
Windows XP, misleads its users into thinking that they must register 
with their Internet provider company MSN to use the Internet.
    If the DOJ thinks that their proposed settlement has stopped the 
Microsoft monopoly, then I urge their lead lawyer to call Dell, 
Gateway or almost any national-level computer manufacturer and ask 
to buy a computer without a Microsoft operating system on it. Almost 
without exception, the answer will be that this is not possible: 
that one must pay for some version of Windows, and that even to buy 
without an operating system at all and install an alternate system 
such as Linux is not possible. Until this changes, as far as I am 
concerned, then the Microsoft monopoly continues to be alive and 
stronger than ever.

[[Page 27635]]

    This is only part of the problem with the settlement. As it is, 
the proposed settlement
    * does not take into account Windows compatible competing 
operating systems
    * contains many misleading, or far too narrowly defined 
provisions, especially in regard to Microsoft's programming 
application interfaces, in as much as it does not require release or 
forbids their use, or make clear which patents they use
    * does not require release of Microsoft Office documentation, 
allowing continued use proprietary formats, which are arbitrarily 
changed with each new version
    * fails to address the extremely restrictive license terms 
Microsoft uses that prevents any of their products from running on 
other operating systems
    * fails to stop Microsoft's retaliation against OEMs who ship 
personal computers without a Microsoft operating system or with a 
competing operating system
    * lacks an effective enforcement provision
    I would like to see a new settlement that takes into account the 
above. Furthermore, I would like to see a substantial fine imposed 
upon Microsoft: the only thing that Microsoft seems to understand is 
the making of money at all costs. Why not punish them in a way that 
they would understand by imposing a $15 billion fine (about 1/2 of 
their current operating reserve)?
    As it is, the current proposed final judgment will simply allow, 
if not encourage, significant continuation of Microsoft's 
anticompetitive practices. As currently written, it is not at all in 
the public interest and should not be adopted without substantial 
revision.
    J. L. Kottal II



MTC-00025428

From: Barbara Hastings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:19pm
Subject: Settlement
    To whom this may concern:
    I believe it would be in the best interests of our country to 
quietly and quickly settle the case with Microsoft. I say this not 
because I know anyone who works for Microsoft, but because this 
dubious case against Microsoft has drug on for way too long. The 
persons this benefits most are the lawyers who love this all the way 
to the bank. This situation is counterproductive to the ordinary 
citizens of the US who stand to lose the most in the long run. The 
government should not be getting involved in free enterprise.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara Hastings
    [email protected]



MTC-00025429

From: Jeff Shuey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    Please stop wasting our taxpayer dollars supporting the efforts 
to prosecute Microsoft. The proposed terms of the agreement are 
going to be difficult for Microsoft to implement and ultimately will 
harm the consumer in all areas of business. Microsoft is being 
persecuted for being successful. The United States of America is a 
capitalist society and should always reward capitalistic behaviour. 
The claims by the plaintiffs are rife with competitor bashing. If 
Microsoft competitors cannot win on business level they should not 
be allowed to win via the courts.
    The consumer has NOT been harmed by Microsoft's continuous 
innovation. In fact, just the opposite is true. Personal computers 
have become a required tool for in modern society for the home, 
education and business consumers. Microsoft and the thousands of 
software developers that have innovated upon the Microsoft platform 
should be thanked. Microsoft helped create an industry and hundreds 
of thousands of jobs. The tax revenue alone from these jobs should 
be considered as great windfalls for some parts of the 
country--computers being built in North Dakota and in Idaho. 
Software developers being able to innovate from 
anywhere--assured that their work will be able to operate on an 
industry standard platform. Based on the feedback and constant 
attention to detail the Microsoft Corporation has continued to 
evolve and innovate the platform by which hardware and software 
vendors create their livelihood. The personal computer industry is 
an industry surrounded and founded upon innovation. Microsoft and 
the thousands of software and hardware developers that have been 
able to build upon a secure, stable, and innovative platform should 
be thanked. Microsoft should not be penalized for helping companies 
succeed. Microsoft should not be forced to become anti-capitalistic.
    Please stop wasting my taxpayer dollars to support the frivolous 
and groundless claims against Microsoft. Please help the economy 
return to normal by fostering competition--not squashing it 
with legal rhetoric.
    Thank you for your time,
    Jeff Shuey
    A Concerned Citizen
    22914 NE 17th Place
    Sammamish, WA 98074



MTC-00025430

From: nat ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:21pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I would like to posit at this juncture that I believe that 
Microsoft, and in turn, Bill Gates, have acted towards both the 
courts and the American public with a unfathomable disregard for the 
law.
    It saddens me to see the courts capitulating once again to a 
corporate interest so obviously full of contempt towards the legal 
system because of their own wealth and power.
    I just want it noted that once you , the justice department, bow 
before the Microsoft giant and give in with little more than a slap 
on the wrist for Mr. Gates and his corporate cronies, you should 
hang your heads in shame for you have done a disservice to the 
American People, and the law which you are supposed to enforce.
    Thank You,
    Nathaniel Ward



MTC-00025431

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Luther Aull
    1711 Ninety Six Hwy
    Ninety Six, SC 29666



MTC-00025432

From: RAYMOND A MATHISEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a senior citizen ,and as a active Internet user I strongly 
support the Microsoft settlement.
    Raymond A Mathisen 
    Date: Friday, January 25, 2002 8:52 PM
    Subject: Fw: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network 

    To: ``[email protected]'' 

    Date: Monday, January 21, 2002 2:04 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. The public comment period for this issue ends on 
January 28th. Please send in your letter as soon as is convenient.
    >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-00025475

From: WIN B ENDERS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think both, the DOJ and Microsoft should accept the terms of 
the settlement and stop this endless litigation and get on with 
being productive.
    win enders



MTC-00025476

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:51pm
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,
    Gene Kitzmann
    1818 East Five Poiny Lake Dr NW
    Hackensack, MN 56452



MTC-00025477

From: Michael T. Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The settlement offer should be accepted and this matter should 
be brought to a close.; Microsoft built a better mousetrap and the

[[Page 27640]]

public bought it. The individuals attempting to undermine the 
settlement are business entities who want the law to be used as a 
bludgeon to beat Microsoft out of a portion of the marketplace for 
them.
    Let's end this matter and get on with living. Should anyone have 
any questions regarding my position on this case please feel free to 
use the contact information in this email to reach me.
    Thank you.
    Michael T. Wilson
    Attorney and Counselor at Law
    631 Crestridge Court
    Wichita, KS 67230-1621
    Telephone: (316) 218-9998
    Facsimile: (316) 218-9998
    Website: www.mwilsonlaw.com
    Email: [email protected]
    (316) 218-9998.



MTC-00025478

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    do not penalize success which is now in short supply. don 
moriarty, nokomis fl.



MTC-00025479

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The case against MS has stalled the IT industry long enough. We 
are in a recession. The case is old news anyway.



MTC-00025480

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The case against MS has stalled the IT industry long enough. We 
are in a recession. The case is old news anyway.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025481

From: Dan Matulich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Legal Battle
    Dear US Government,
    Let me clarify: I am a retired engineering manager who uses 
computer daily and who has learned over the years how to communicate 
better thanks to Microsoft's ingenuity.
    I admire this company as much as I admire Edison. In our market 
driven economy innovation is the key and competition is the means 
that customers use to get the best deal. Microsoft was innovative 
and competitive and daring to take risks. Competitors lost and are 
trying now through the back door to get some of the lost market 
share.
    Further government intervention will only further exacerbate the 
economic conditions we presently are experiencing by slowing down 
further the innovation which was key to a bit prosperity we have 
had. I do not see any Microsoft competitor coming up with some new 
ideas other than hiring lawyers to get money by other means. How 
sad. Don't encourage this kind of effort.
    Respectfully,
    Dan Matulich
    5017 Range Horse Lane
    Rolling Hills Estates
    CA 90274
    Tel 310-373-2940
    [email protected]



MTC-00025482

From: Gary P Greenland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern,
    I would like to submit my thoughts on the Microsoft case. I 
believe it is time to place this matter behind us and move forward. 
I think that further litigation will only serve to hurt the American 
consumer. I do not believe Microsoft has committed any antitrust 
violations. Please rule on this promptly. Thank You.
    Gary P. Greenland



MTC-00025483

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:01pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Surely the government-suggested settlement with Microsoft has 
been patiently arrived-at and seems eminently fair. After all the 
time and money spent by both sides, isn't now the time to conclude 
this business and let the government and the company make better use 
of its energies? I believe so.
    Gerald Miller, New York City



MTC-00025484

From: Mike Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it's time for the Government to close this case against 
Microsoft and give up the Witch hunt the Clintons started . I see no 
reason to keep dragging this case out .



MTC-00025485

From: bear
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:02pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It's no secret that Steve Case, Scott Mc Nealy and Larry Ellison 
are not friends of Microsoft. Competitors often disagree but usually 
settle their differences by letting the players, in this case the 
consumer to choose the winner.
    What did Microsoft do wrong? Not charging individuals for 
Internet Explorer was brilliant. I was not hurt as a consumer it was 
free. As a result I recently downloaded the Netscape Browser for 
free. Would this be possible if Internet Explorer didn't exist? No 
matter how you look at it the consumer benefits. Yahoo adopted a 
similar business plan by giving consumers free access. As a user of 
all the listed products I think it's great.
    In the end the DoJ will decide how big an impact on our economy 
this settlement will have. A speedy decision will help the economy 
by providing clarity by Quantifying risk. Investors in 401k, IRA's, 
mutual funds, state and federal pension plans, and individual 
investors nervously await the out come. Anything less will leave a 
cloud of uncertainty, which will keep MSFT and the rest of the 
market from focusing on their businesses. In this case all investors 
and the economy will be hurt.
    I know the DoJ believes they are smarter and think I'm a 
simpleton. But my response is to protect my interests not that of 
MSFT. As a small business owner I believe in free market competition 
not protectionism. My view is Microsoft gave the end user the best 
deal. They gave us more for less with seem-less integration. Any 
claim to the effect things would be better if Microsoft innovation 
is impeded is pure speculation. How many innovations have 
competitors given to consumers at no charge? People and companies 
don't always make good on their claims and tend to exaggerate when 
``if and buts'' are added in the mix.
    Larry Oshita



MTC-00025486

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Dennis Cox
    315 Ashebrook Rd Apt 60
    Salisbury, NC 28147



MTC-00025487

From: Mac User
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am strongly opposed to the settlement offered in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. Microsoft has repeatedly used anti-competitive 
practices to undermine other companies to maintain their monopoly. 
They also continually use their monopoly power to leverage other 
markets. This has severely hampered innovation in the computer 
industry. The penalty for their actions must allow for the re-
introduction of true competition into the marketplace. The 
settlement does absolutely nothing to address these serious issues. 
Indeed, only a true break-up of the company along with opening up of 
the source code and data file formats can help. Further a ban is 
required on their

[[Page 27641]]

ability to contract with computer manufacturers which prevent them 
from selling competing software.
    As a developer in the computer industry, I personally feel the 
negative effects of the Microsoft monopoly every day. Something 
better needs to be done to rectify the situation, and Microsoft will 
never willingly agree to what is needed. I implore you do the right 
thing and forget about settlement and enact a fitting penalty that 
will be effective.
    Do not forget that they willfully fabricated false testimony in 
the original case. How can they be trusted to develop a fair 
settlement?
    Sincerely,
    Frank Schima
    Gaithersburg, MD USA



MTC-00025488

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Tracy Dorgan
    1 Birch Hil Drive
    Nashua, NH 03063-2502



MTC-00025489

From: Evan J Hale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    I firmly believe that it is time to end this very expensive 
court case that is costing taxpayers millions just because one 
company (Microsoft) makes a better product than it's competitors, 
thus sells more. It is lining the pockets of competitor big wigs and 
lawyers. Of course they would like to drag it on. I have urged 
Utah's Attorney General to go along with other states in bringing 
this to a halt and hope that the Justice Department can mitigate 
this before any more money is spent.
    Evan J. Hale
    [email protected]



MTC-00025490

From: Earl H Barton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs:,
    I think the time has come to put this to an end. The settlement 
as is, is fair to all and should be ended now. No other company has 
helped the public as much as Microsoft. They are the only one's I 
know of that's gives so much to Charity. I dont see any of the 
others doing this. Just because Microsoft has the best product, as I 
have used, Is no reason to try to break up the company... Thats just 
not the American way.
    You may use this in any way you see fit. Thank you for letting 
me put in my two cents worth..
    Earl H. Barton, age-70
    68 Pine Rd. POB-182
    Norris, Tn 37828
    [email protected]



MTC-00025491

From: Mason Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00025491 0001

    As a professional working in the technology sector, I often have 
occasion to use Microsoft software and competing products. I am 
therefore concerned that the Revised Proposed Final Judgment in the 
Microsoft antitrust case has a number of deficiencies that prevent 
the Judgment from providing certain and effective relief for 
Microsoft's violations of the Sherman Act. Unless these flaws are 
corrected, the Revised Proposed Final Judgment is clearly against 
the public interest and will positively harm third parties.
    This Comment addresses five serious deficiencies of the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment. The deficiencies are discussed in the order 
they appear in the Judgment, not necessarily in their relative order 
of impact on injunctive relief. The deficiencies are:
    1. The Judgment provides no remedies for past unlawful conduct.
    2. Allowing volume discounts anticompetitively maintains 
Microsoft's monopoly (Section III.A. and III.B.).
    3. Restrictions on disclosure of communications protocols 
maintains a barrier to competition (Section III.E.) .
    4. Arbitrary five year term of Judgment harms the public 
interest (Section V.).
    5. The definition of ``Non-Microsoft Middleware 
Product'' maintains a barrier to competition (Section VI.N.).
    Although it is unreasonable to expect a truly optimal Judgment 
that best serves the public interest, the existence of any one of 
the above deficiencies--and certainly the coexistence of 
several of them--will not end Microsoft's unlawful conduct nor 
avoid a recurrence of violations of the Sherman Act, and is thus 
outside the reaches of the public interest.
    1. Judgment provides no remedies for past unlawful conduct 
Although the Revised Proposed Final Judgment provides limited 
remedies ``to halt continuance and prevent recurrence of the 
violations of the Sherman Act by Microsoft'' (Competitive 
Impact Statement, Section I.), it does not in any way ``undo 
its anticompetitive consequences'' (Competitive Impact 
Statement Section IV.B.). There is no provision in the Judgment to 
remedy any past anticompetitive actions by Microsoft: all provisions 
in the Judgment attempt to alter the current and future behavior of 
Microsoft. As such, the Judgment does not effectively restore the 
competitive conditions experienced by Microsoft prior to its 
violations of the Sherman Act.
    An effective remedy for Microsoft's past illegal actions 
requires a careful balance to empower injured competitors while not 
unduly damaging Microsoft. A simple but fair remedy would create a 
pool of Microsoft's money based on a percentage of sales of 
Microsoft Operating System Products since the filing of the 
antitrust complaint till the time of the Final Judgment entered by 
the Court. The parties damaged by Microsoft's anticompetitive 
behavior (e.g., Sun Microsystems, Netscape Communications Corp., 
etc.) would be payed from this pool. The size of the pool and the 
relative payment terms to competitors are details that require 
careful consideration.
    2. Allowing volume discounts anticompetitively maintains 
Microsoft's monopoly
    Allowing volume discounts serves no procompetitive interest and 
is in fact very much against the public interest as it serves to 
illegally maintain Microsoft's monopoly. Section III.A. of the 
revised proposed final judgment stipulates that ``Nothing in 
this provision shall prohibit Microsoft from providing 
Consideration...commensurate with the absolute level or amount of 
that OEM's development, distribution, promotion, or licensing of 
that Microsoft product or service.'' Section III.B.2 provides 
for a licensing fee schedule that ``may specify reasonable 
volume discounts based upon the actual volume of licenses of any 
Windows Operating System Product...'' These provisions allow 
Microsoft to continue to leverage its monopoly position to illegally 
maintain that monopoly. The Competitive Impact Statement entirely 
ignores the anticompetitive ramifications of these terms.
    Unlike traditional manufacturing, where the production or 
distribution of a large quantity of a product can generate 
``economies of scale'' and thereby procompetitively 
justify non-uniform pricing (e.g., volume discounts), the licensing 
of software has no significant economies of scale. A comparison with 
traditional manufacturing is useful. For a car dealership selling 
hundreds of cars per month, there is economic justification for the 
car manufacturer to provide a volume discount to the dealership: the 
distribution costs (shipping) per car are lower than for a 
dealership selling only ten cars per month. With software however, 
the only economy of scale obtained is slightly cheaper production 
materials: compact disks for distribution and paper for 
documentation and product boxes. OEMs typically only include a 
compact disk with a new computer purchase, for which the volume 
production cost is under one dollar (USS1.00) . Hence the economies 
of scale afforded by large scale OEMs to Microsoft are less than one 
percent (1%) of the retail value of typical Windows Operating System 
Products. Hence there is no significant procompetitive reason to 
allow volume discounts to large OEMs.

[[Page 27642]]

    Allowing Microsoft to offer volume discounts will further 
entrench its monopoly position. With volume discounts, Microsoft 
would retain the ability to price its Windows Operating System 
Product licenses at an artificially low cost to the largest OEM 
vendors. These vendors would thus have a strong incentive to 
continue to offer exclusively or predominantly the Microsoft 
Operating System Product on new Personal Computers. The largest OEM 
Personal Computer suppliers would have a free market incentive to 
choose alternate Operating System Products if Microsoft's Operating 
System Product were instead priced at an open market value. Avoiding 
volume discounts increases competition while preventing Microsoft 
from leveraging its monopoly to stifle competition.
    This deficiency of the revised proposed final judgment is 
remedied by deleting the words ``distribution'' and 
``licensing'' from the last paragraph of Section III.A. 
and by modifying Section III.B.2 to read ``the schedule may not 
specify volume discounts based upon the actual volume of licenses of 
any Windows Operating System Product or any group of such 
products.'' These modifications will still allow Microsoft to 
compete in the marketplace based on the merits of the Windows 
Operating System Products, but prevent Microsoft from 
anticompetitively erecting barriers to competitive products.
    3. Restrictions on disclosure of communications protocols 
maintains barrier to competition
    The Revised Proposed Final Judgment maintains a significant 
barrier to competing Non-Microsoft Middleware Products by 
restricting the disclosure of Communications Protocols. Section 
III.E. of the Judgment provides that Microsoft shall disclose 
Communications Protocols ``on reasonable and non-discriminatory 
terms.'' Such terms, however, prevent a large number of 
established and nascent competitors from obtaining the Communication 
Protocols. ``Reasonable and non-discriminatory'' license 
terms act as an anticompetitive barrier to potential Microsoft 
competitors, while providing no procompetitive advantage for 
Microsoft.
    ``Shareware'' software developers typically provide 
software products (including middleware) free of charge for end 
users to evaluate, and only demand payment if the end user decides 
to continue using the software product. Such developers would be 
unable to comply with ``reasonable and non-
discriminatory'' licensing terms unless a very large percentage 
of end users payed for the software product. Similarly, the entire 
``open source'' class of software would be unable to meet 
``reasonable and non-discriminatory'' terms as the 
``open source'' licenses allow virtually unlimited 
duplication and derivation rights. Several important Non-Microsoft 
Middleware Products are ``open source'', notably the Samba 
program (http://www.samba.org), that provides file transfer and 
print services through the Microsoft SMB Communications Protocol. 
The Samba program is a well-established and widely used alternative 
to Microsoft Middleware Products, but it would be effectively 
prevented from competing with Microsoft through the adoption of 
``reasonable and non-discriminatory'' licensing terms for 
future changes in the SMB protocol.
    This deficiency of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment can be 
remedied by a simple wording change. The phrase ``reasonable 
and non-discriminatory'' in Section III.E. of the Judgment 
should be changed to ``royalty free''. Since Microsoft's 
ability to hide Communication Protocols serves only to prevent 
competitors from effectively interoperating with Microsoft products 
and does not in any way increase competition, a mandatory royalty 
free license would serve to allow both large and small competitors 
to interoperate with Microsoft products.
    4. Arbitrary five year term of Judgment harms the public 
interest
    The Competitive Impact Statement in Section IV.C. claims that a 
five year time frame for the Judgment ``provides sufficient 
time for the conduct remedies contained in the Proposed Final 
Judgment to take effect...and to restore competitive conditions to 
the greatest extent possible.'' The Competitive Impact 
Statement provides neither evidence, nor precedence, nor logic to 
support this claim.
    In fact, a five year term may well be too long. The provisions 
of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment may turn out to be so 
effective at restoring competition that Microsoft loses its 
dominance in less than two years in the Operating System market for 
Personal Computers and becomes unnecessarily hobbled by the 
restrictions of the Judgment. In such a case, Microsoft would be 
unfairly restricted from competing in the market for another three 
years, possibly causing great economic damage to Microsoft and 
depriving consumers of the fruits of a vibrant competition in the 
Operating System market.
    Alternatively, the provisions of the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment might not be sufficient to hinder Microsoft's 
anticompetitive actions, and Microsoft could continue to violate the 
Sherman Act through an extended seven-year Judgment period. Clearly 
such a situation would severely harm the public interest, again 
depriving consumers of the benefits of a competitive market and 
stifling the entire Operating System and Middleware market. The 
arbitrary five year Judgment term length would only be beneficial in 
the most serendipitous of circumstances, and the arbitrary two-year 
extension does not mitigate this fault.
    The overriding concern of this Judgment is to prevent 
Microsoft's anticompetitive actions and to restore competitive 
conditions to the market, and it is that principle that should guide 
the term length of the Judgment. The most straightforward 
application of this principle would be to terminate the Judgment 
when Microsoft no longer enjoys monopoly status. This could be 
achieved with the following replacement for Section V. (Termination) 
of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment:
    ``This Final Judgment will expire when Microsoft's Windows 
Operating System Product has less than fifty percent share of the 
Personal Computer Operating System market (as determined by a market 
study provided by a mutually agreed upon third party).''
    With this revised termination clause, the Judgment will stand 
exactly as long as necessary for the public interest. An alternate 
definition of monopoly status (i.e., instead of ``fifty percent 
market share'') may also be acceptable, provided it is 
logically and legally defensible, and maintains the intent of the 
Judgment.
    This new termination clause will ensure the return of healthy 
competition to the Operating System market without unduly 
burdening--or harming--Microsoft. At the point that 
Microsoft's Windows Operating System Products have less than fifty 
percent share of the Personal Computer Operating System market, 
there is clearly healthy competition in that market, with at least 
one other dominant competitor to Microsoft. There is then no further 
reason to impose the conditions of the Judgment. However, Microsoft 
is not prevented from maintaining its monopoly on the technical 
merits of its products. The ongoing terms of the Judgment would not 
be onerous to Microsoft should it maintain a monopoly position 
without resorting to anticompetitive actions.
    5. Definition of ``Non-Microsoft Middleware Product'' 
maintains barrier to competition
    Although the Revised Proposed Final Judgment seeks to 
``restore the competitive threat that middleware products posed 
prior to Microsoft's unlawful conduct'' (Competitive Impact 
Statement, Section IV), the proposed definition of ``Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product'' serves instead to maintain 
barriers to competition. Section VI.N. of the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment stipulates that a software product, among other 
requirements, can only be considered a ``Non-Microsoft 
Middleware Product'' if ``at least one million copies were 
distributed in the United States within the previous year.'' 
This requirement is explained in the Competitive Impact Statement, 
Section IV.A. as being ``intended to avoid Microsoft's 
affirmative obligations...being triggered by minor, or even 
nonexistent, products that have not established a competitive 
potential in the market...'' As the Competitive Impact 
Statement makes clear, the definition of ``Non-Microsoft 
Middleware Product'' intentionally limits the possible 
competitive impact of nascent middleware products. Such a limitation 
is antithetical to the desired goals of the Judgment.
    This deficiency of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment can be 
easily remedied by deleting Section VI.N. (ii) and thus removing the 
restriction on number of copies distributed. The Competitive Impact 
Statement in Section IV.A. states that the restriction on number of 
copies distributed ``is intended to avoid Microsoft's 
affirmative obligations--including the API disclosure required 
by Section III.D. and the creation of the mechanisms required by 
Section III.H.--being triggered by minor, or even nonexistent, 
products...'' In other words, Microsoft should not endure an 
onerous burden in its obligations. However, deleting Section VI.N. 
(ii) would not create such a

[[Page 27643]]

burden. Since Section III.D. already specifies that APIs and related 
Documentation shall be disclosed via the Microsoft Developer Network 
or similar mechanisms, Microsoft will not require any further effort 
to make the APIs and Documentation available to ISVs or other 
middleware developers that have not established a competitive 
potential in the market--but that nevertheless have the 
potential to become competitors with Microsoft. Furthermore, the 
mechanisms required in Section III.H. (such as the creation of Add/
Remove icons) are sufficiently generic that they will only need to 
be created once--and likely already exist--to accommodate 
all Microsoft and Non-Microsoft Middleware, and hence the expansion 
of the number and kind of possible middleware competitors to 
Microsoft again does not create an undue burden on the company.
    This Comment has been submitted through both e-mail and 
facsimile copy.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Mason Thomas
    4333 Wildwest Circle
    Moorpark, CA 93021
    (805) 530-1502
    January 25, 2002
    Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
    http://www.hotmail.com
    00025491 0005



MTC-00025492

From: LARRY HAYDEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:07pm
Subject: WHAT DID I FIGHT FOR
    WHY DID I FIGHT TO KEEP AMERICANS FREE ?WHEN OUR OWN GOVERMENT 
AND OTHERS LIKE THEM WON'T LEAVE OTHERS ALONE TO PURSURE THE DREAM . 
IF OTHERS DON'T HAVE A DREAM OF THERE ON THEN DON'T GET INTO OTHERS. 
BILL GATES AND OTHERS LIKE HIM HAD A DREAM BUT THE GOVERMENT PUT 
THERE TWO CENTS WORTH IN. THE OTHERS LIKE THE OTHER 9 STATES AND NOW 
AOL? WELL I GUESS ALL THE THINGS I WENT THROUGH AND OTHERS LIKE ME 
WELL, I GUESS IT WAS ALL IN VAIN. WE ARE NOT A FREE COUNTRY WHEN THE 
GOV CAN TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN INVENT FOR THE BENNIFIT OF OTHERS. I 
GUESS IT WAS JUST A DREAM.
    LARRY HAYDEN



MTC-00025493

From: Dan Liscinsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00025494

From: Joe King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a consumer of computer software and hardware items, I urge 
that the Microsoft Case be settled as soon as possible and let this 
industry resolve the issues through competition rather than through 
politics and unjust justice.
    Thanks, Joe King



MTC-00025495

From: piyush gupta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    I am a first generation immigrant, having arrived here from 
India 23 years ago. I remember the two things that had most 
impressed me a short time after I landed. One was the highway 
system--so cleverly built that one could go from one end of the 
country to another without encountering any barriers like traffic 
lights! And the second was the anti-trust system underlying our free 
market economy that has made ours the most powerful nation on Earth. 
It was an immense eye-opener for me to find out how the anti-trust 
sytem had successfully decoupled the film sales market from the film 
development market and enabled two thriving, competitive markets to 
develop and benefit consumers nationwide.
    Well, I feel that our anti-trust system is letting us down in 
the MicroSoft case. At least two Federal courts have now determined 
that MicroSoft is an illegal monopoly--a fact that has been 
evident for years to professionals in the computing field like 
myself. I have had some first hand experience in seeing how 
MicroSoft deals with potential ``partners.'' MicroSoft has 
yet to deliver any original piece of technology to the marketplace. 
Their operating system monopoly has been based on getting the DOS 
software from someone else, partnering then driving IBM away. Their 
database was stolen from Sybase. Netscape created the browser 
market, and MicroSoft illegally used their Windows monopoly to 
virtually drive them out of business.
    I work in the computer industry in Silicon Valley. Any 
enterpreneur who tries to start a company and raise venture capital 
is now asked how they will prevent MicroSoft from crushing them if 
they are successful! You can imagine the chilling effect this is 
having on innovation. If MicroSoft is allowed to continue unchecked, 
it will be disaster for the American IT industry. Why would you 
bother to create another innovation like the web browser when you 
know MicroSoft will copy it, bundle it with Windows, and drive you 
out of business!
    I'm glad the civil suit settlement was rejected-- can you 
imagine, the civil settlement would have provided MicroSoft with a 
toehold in the education market, the only one where Apple has been 
able to hold the off!! I hope you will see fit to reject the 
proposed DOJ settlement as well. It does not punish MicroSoft for 
its past anti-competitive practices, nor prevents it from continuing 
to do so in the future. Approving the current settlement will spell 
disaster for the future economic well being. Thank you.



MTC-00025496

From:[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date:1/25/02 9:08pm
Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00025496 0001

    Dear DOJ:
    I want to say so much, perhaps too much! Instead I shall offer a 
number of sentences, keeping them as brief as possible:
    (1) As a consumer, I want all manufacturers of the products I 
purchase to enjoy the freedom to make those products better for me, 
without the jeopardy of Big Brother Interference!
    (2) AS a reader of multiple articles on this endless government 
harassment of Microsoft, I have concluded simply that a number of 
companies [all of whom share some specific monopolistic piece of the 
pie] turned to Government Officials to hamper and hammer Microsoft 
when this cadre of companies decided they could not defeat Microsoft 
in a marketplace controlled by the long-standing principles of the 
American Economic System! Like a child who decides not to slug it 
out with his nasty classmate; but to go home to summon his 
``big'' brother to do the fighting for him!
    (3) As a past student of some psychology courses, I think that 
Jealousy has had too much to do with this legal pursuit of a premier 
company. The multibillionaires in control of the ``offended 
corporations'' are envious of the astounding success of the 
richest! Even the Federal and State Governments fall prey to the 
venom of jealousy seeing what a well-organized and truly innovative 
Corporation can achieve; while these governmental entities prove 
largely feckless to their tasks and reckless with taxpayers'' 
money in the process!
    (4) In view of Judge Jackson's relentless pursuit of Microsoft 
and his self-declared antagonism for its officers, it bedazzles me 
that the Court of Appeals would uphold his Findings as unprejudiced 
and valid! The fact that he may have declared his belligerence 
toward Microsoft only subsequent to Court Proceedings cannot 
distract a thoughtful individual from the fact that those 
belligerent statements revealed his mindset and opinion throughout 
the entire course of this legal saga!
    (5) By upholding the Jackson Findings, the Court of Appeals 
covered the ``behind'' of the Judiciary System; but, in 
its attempt to protect the Honor of that System, it failed to do 
true Justice! Could the Judges not see -or did they see but pretend 
not to see- that hostile statements made by Judges against 
Principals in their Courts display for the world not a ``new 
prejudice'' against a defendant just now judged to be guilty? 
Simple chronology cannot be invoked to defend a long-standing, 
vindictive attitude and mindset that dishonor the very Judiciary 
System the Court of Appeals tried so hard to protect. Despite 
obvious partiality on the part of the Trial Judge -obvious at least 
to ordinary laypeople- virtually all his condemnatory Findings were 
upheld!
    (6) The slap on Judge Jackson's hand did not achieve Justice! 
The Jackson Findings were mortally flawed through and through by the 
prejudices of a judge who is paid to be unprejudiced! The rejection 
of a split-up of Microsoft as a remedy was too obvious, really, even 
to have taken up the Appeal Court's time! Judge Jackson had wrongly 
escalated his proceedings far beyond the

[[Page 27644]]

scope of the suit itself. As a matter of fact, the essence of the 
case against Microsoft, ie. the bundling, was found by the Court of 
Appeals in Microsoft's favor! How can a man accused of murder be 
declared guilty of murder if he is shown to be an adulterer? How can 
a company accused of illegal bundling -and the finding of illegal 
bundling is subsequently overruled- be required to pay damages 
because it had bad business manners?
    (7) We are faced now with a New World of Commerce! Competition 
is no longer valued as the arbiter of corporate success or failure. 
Now Government and the Judiciary are to be given carte-blanche to 
police and to punish those corporations that have the temerity to be 
TOO SUCCESSFUL FOR THEIR COMPETITORS'' LIKING!
    Thank you.



MTC-00025497

From: Donald W. Hurta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:09pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement ----Original 
Message----
From: Donald W. Hurta
To: [email protected]
    Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 6:19 PM
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern, Enough is enough!!! Let's get on with 
the economy. leave Microsoft alone!!!
    What were you people thinking to start with ? They no more a 
monopoly than General Motors or Ford. Quit wasting public money on 
this ridiculous boondoggle.
    Sincerely,
    Donald W. Hurta



MTC-00025498

From: Carll Frye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:08pm
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 am writing this letter in regards to the antitrust settlement 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. My opinion is that 
the litigations against Microsoft need to come to an end and the 
settlement that has been reached is more than fair and reasonable. 
Microsoft has agreed to terms that extend well beyond the products 
and procedures that were actually at issue in the suit. This 
litigation shows that a normal hardworking person can only get so 
far. You take a company and put your whole life into it, build it up 
from the ground up and then the government comes in and tells you 
that you have to tear it down.
    Furthermore, Microsoft gives thousands of people jobs, donates 
millions to charity, and has developed software that has enabled 
people to run their own businesses more efficiently. The terms that 
Microsoft has agreed to have shown that they are willing to do what 
it takes to end this matter, enabling themselves and the courts to 
concentrate on more pressing issues. Microsoft has consented not to 
retaliate against software and hardware developers and promoters 
that compete with Microsoft. Also, Microsoft will make it easier for 
non-Windows programs to run within Windows.
    It is obvious this issue needs closure. Litigations will 
continue to waste millions in tax dollars not to mention the effect 
that it has had on the IT industry and the economy. Microsoft has 
worked hard to become the company it is and should not be torn down 
or hassled any further.
    Sincerely,
    Robyn Frye
    15903 SE 58th Street
    Bellevue, WA 98006



MTC-00025499

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:06pm
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,
    E Strange
    35223 Cielo Vista
    Cathedral City, CA 92234



MTC-00025500

From: Darlene Wallach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a very bad idea. It is NO punishment 
for Microsoft rather it furthers their products being used and 
precludes the use of other products.
    Darlene Wallach
    47 Boston Avenue
    San Jose, CA 95128-1902
    [email protected]



MTC-00025501

From: Rosemary Scanlon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please see the attached letter urging that this settlement be 
completed.
    Enough is enough.
    Rosemary Scanlon
    10 Clinton Street # 9T
    Brooklyn, NY 11201
    January 25, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have been following the ongoing antitrust lawsuit between the 
U.S. government and Microsoft, and I would like to see it settled 
according to the terms both sides agreed to in November. Microsoft 
is making several important concessions to end the case, and I feel 
that your office should comply with the settlement.
    Microsoft has agreed to significant changes to end the suit, 
changes that will benefit both its competitors and consumers as a 
whole. Designing new means for computer makers and users to 
customize their use of Windows and its affiliated programs, as well 
as to integrate programs by competing developers, enhances the 
public's freedom of choice, while protecting Microsoft's right to 
continue developing some of the most innovative technologies in the 
marketplace.
    I believe that the case has been active long enough, and the 
potential settlement is the only likely way to end it any time soon. 
I urge you to finalize the settlement and move on to more important 
matters.
    Sincerely,
    Rosemary Scanlon



MTC-00025502

From: Matt Covey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm a software engineer with more than 20 years'' 
experience developing for numerous platforms. I'd like to comment on 
the Proposed Final Judgment (PJF).
    Specifically, I believe the PFJ has 3 serious flaws:
    a) it allows many exclusionary practices to continue
    b) it does not take any direct measures to reduce the 
``applications barrier to entry'' faced by new entrants to 
the market
    c) it does not deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation
    I won't go into details--there are other public comments 
describing these points*. Instead, I would say that after reading 
the proposed settlement and it's technical remedies, I see nothing 
that stops Microsoft from continuing it's current style of business. 
These remedies will have very little real-world effect. And if 
Microsoft is allowed to retain the benefits of it's past misconduct 
and more importantly continue it's anti-competitive behavior, how is 
this a settlement that benefits anyone except Microsoft?
    Certainly it doesn't benefit the consumer.
    Sincerely,
    Matt Covey
    President, Classical Software
    * Two examples: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
    http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/recent/162.cfm



MTC-00025503

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement

[[Page 27645]]

    i believe the microsoft case has gone on long enough. with all 
the problems the country has now we should get on with the future 
and not have att gen's of the various drag the case on longer. 
considering the anti cigarette debacle with the states missusing 
huge amounts of funds, it makes little sense to allow them to 
attempt hurting a company that has been so innovating and successful 
in expanding the tech world. they have been an asset to the country 
and their pricing has kept the cost of computing reasonable for all 
of us. Frank Friedland 6945 Fountains Circle
    Lake Worth, F e-MAIL ADRESS [email protected]



MTC-00025504

From: Juan Rodriguez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:13pm
Subject: US vs. Microsoft
    Dear Sirs,
    I am a network administrator for a small CPA firm in Southern 
Indiana, and I am also a CPA. As someone who works with computers 
every day, I will be affected by the outcome of US vs. Microsoft. 
However, I believe the proposed settlement is not appropriate given 
the facts of the case or the fact that Microsoft, Inc. has already 
been found guilty of illegally maintaining its monopoly.
    The proposed settlement does not address several issues that I 
believe are extremely important.
    The settlement does not keep Microsoft from preventing computer 
manufacturers and/or resellers from bundling competing products with 
the computers and Microsoft operating systems.
    The proposed settlement allows Microsoft to keep its illegally 
obtained profits. Microsoft's monopoly profits are the direct result 
of its anti-competitive practices. Consumers have overpaid for 
Microsoft products, specifically the Windows 95 operating system, 
but this issue is not addressed. Consumers are being harmed because 
they have overpaid for Microsoft products but that money is not 
being repaid. Such repayment might have a positive side-effect on 
the economy because consumers will probably spend at least some of 
that money if it is repaid. Also, criminals should not be allowed to 
keep their ill-gotten gains. Criminals should also not be allowed to 
use their ill-gotten gains to pay for their legal defense.
    The settlement makes no attempt to punish Microsoft for their 
wrongdoings. While the settlement establishes some mechanisms to 
prevent future wrongdoing, it does not address punishment for past 
wrongdoings. This is not consistent with the American Justice 
System.
    A more fair settlement should address the following:
    1. In order to prevent an extension of Microsoft's monopoly, its 
products, particularly its operating systems, should be placed as 
extra-cost options in the purchase of new computers, so that 
consumers who do not wish to purchase them are not forced to do so. 
This would help consumers see what they are actually paying for 
Microsoft products and might cause consumers to consider 
alternatives. A more informed public should be a desired outcome of 
the trial for the US Government.
    2. The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document 
file formats must be made public. This will allow documents created 
with Microsoft applications to be read by applications from other 
software makers or developers.
    3. Any present and future Microsoft networking and 
authentication protocols must be published and approved by an 
independent body. This would help prevent Microsoft from seizing 
control of the Internet and data centers.
    4. The money that consumers have overpaid for Microsoft products 
should be repaid, in order to rectify some of the harm consumers 
have endured.
    Please reject the proposed settlement and work towards stiffer 
penalties for Microsoft.
    Regards,
    Juan R. Rodriguez, CPA
    New Albany, Indiana



MTC-00025505

From: Paul Slagle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case.
    I agree and support several well-written and detailed arguments 
against the settlement. These include:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html
    http://www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunneywine.html
    Personally, I have been a software engineer for over 20 years, 
working with mainframes, PCs, and Unix boxes. I've worked w/
operating systems from IBM, DEC, Microsoft, SUN, and HP among 
others. By far the most enjoyable and enriching years have been 
those working w/Unix and its variants, including Linux. The openness 
of the Unix community, including commercial companies, is far more 
in the public interest than Microsoft could ever dream to be.
    Microsoft is a monopoly, interested in serving the interests of 
Microsoft, not the interests of the public. If Microsoft was truly 
and sincerely concerned about the public interest, full 
specifications of their APIs would be published. Source code would 
be freely available. Cooperative efforts on products would be 
encouraged and would flourish. But that is not how a monopoly such 
as Microsoft operates, and the proposed settlement does little to 
change the actions of said monopoly.
    Thank you for your time and efforts.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Slagle
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025506

From: res0s8pt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:14pm
Subject: Stop Punishilng Success
    We urge you not to give in to Microsoft's competitors'' 
unreasonable demands. Our country's increasing harshness towards 
corporations will not help anyone. Wouldn't we be much better off if 
families like the Kennedys had used their millions to go into 
business, thereby employing thousands of people, rather than going 
into government on the backs of the working class and impeding those 
who are employing us?
    We are retired now, but feel we were much better served by those 
willing to create business than by politicians claiming to have the 
interests of the worker at heart while getting paid by our taxes.
    Three cheers for Bill Gates, his vision and his courage.
    Agnes and Roland Peterson
    Malibu, CA 90265



MTC-00025507

From: robert p cp calnan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:13pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    HEY YOU GUYS, STOP THAT CRAP NOW...............SETTLE IT!!!!!!!!
    THE WORLD NEEDS MICROSOFT AND YOU GUYS NEED TO GET BUSY ON OUR 
MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES LIKE HEALTH AND RETIREMENT STUFF.
    LISTEN TO THE GRAY HAIRED PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOTS OF EXPERIENCE AND 
HAVE SPENT TOO MUCH TIME OBSERVING LITTLE FORWARD MOVEMENT IN 
WASHINGTON.
    DO SOMETHING FOR THE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF THE BIG BUSINESSES 
MICROSOFT HAS SERVED ALL OF US WELL AND DRAGGED US TO WHERE WE ARE 
TODAY. LEAVE THEM ALONE, GO AFTER THE MORE PRESSING 
ISSUES..........HOW ABOUT THE HOMELESS, GET THEM ARRESTED SO THEY 
CAN GET 3 SQUARES........PLEASE STOP THIS MADNESS. WE ARE AT WAR, 
LEAVE THIS CRAP ALONE.
    BOB CALNAN LAKE ELSINORE, CA.



MTC-00025508

From: William James Hart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:15pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    THANK YOU FOR REACHING A REASONABLE AND FAIR SETTLELENT IN THE 
MICROSOFT CASE.
    I USE MICROSOFT PRODUCTS BECAUSE OF THEIR EXCELLENCE AND THE 
PRODUCTIVE RESULTS I GET.
    PLEASE DO NOT LET OTHERS SEEK TO ADVANCE THEIR BUSINESSES BY 
FALSE CLAIMS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY DO THE SAME COMPETITIVE THINGS. 
LET COMPETITON SORT OUT BUSINESS, PLEASE. SUN MICRSOSYTEMS ARE 
GIVING AWAY STAR OFFICE AND IT IS A FINE PROGRAM. MICROSOFT ARE NOT 
CHARGING THEM WITH ANYTHING. THE TRUTH IS THAT SUN AND OTHERS CANNOT 
GIVE AWAY THINGS BECAUSE MICRSOFT ARE SO MUCH BETTER.
    CC:William James Hart

[[Page 27646]]



MTC-00025509

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support of the United States 
Department of Justice's recent efforts to settle the Microsoft 
antitrust lawsuit.
    This case really should not have been brought against Microsoft. 
Microsoft's innovations have and continue to contribute immensly to 
the productivity and economy of the United States . Microsoft 
single-handedly through ``Window's Operating System'' made 
computers accessible to the world. Computers are now in virtually 
every household and bussness in the country. Microsoft may have been 
aggressive in their business dealings, but that is the way of the 
business world in a free-market society. Aggressive business tactics 
are not necessarily the same as antitrust violations. Despite my 
feeling that this case should not have been filed, at this stage of 
the game I think the wise course of action is to settle the case. 
The settlement agreement the parties negotiated is fairly 
reasonable. It will require Microsoft to refrain from retaliating 
against computer manufacturers that install software other than 
Windows on their computers. Along those same lines, it will require 
Microsoft to not retaliate against software developers who develop 
programs that compete with Windows. These concessions should help 
the competition operate on a more level playing field.
    I appreciate your efforts to settle this case.
    Sincerely,
    Howard w.Cox



MTC-00025510

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    Under the Tunney Act, below are comments on the proposed 
settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case.
    The United States Government and the DOJ are doing a great 
disservice to all Americans by allowing Microsoft to continue to run 
roughshod over the entire computer industry. The proposed settlement 
is far too weak and vague and will allow Microsoft to continue in a 
business-as-usual mode. Microsoft business tactics squelch 
innovation and keep prices for software high by not allowing other 
competitors in the market.
    Of many, here are two specific areas of the proposed settlement 
that are lacking power:
    1. The proposed settlement does not prohibit anticompetitive 
license terms. Microsoft uses these restrictive licensing schemes to 
keep Open Source apps from running on Windows and keeps Windows apps 
from running on competing operating systems. (In a truly competitive 
arena, Microsoft Office would run on Linux.)
    2. The proposed settlement does not stop Microsoft from using 
intentional incompatibilities. Microsoft continually inserts 
intentional incompatibilities to prevent its applications from 
running on other operating systems.
    Thank you,
    David Parker
    Graphic Designer/3D Artist/ Teacher
    Lawton Paul Design
    [email protected]



MTC-00025511

From: Ken LLewellyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I believe very strongly that the proposed settlement is an 
extremely BAD IDEA! All you have to do is look at all the loopholes 
that Microsoft will, of course, take advantage of. The overall 
effect of the proposal will curb Microsoft's behavior only to a 
small degree. Once again, the proposed settlement is an extremely 
BAD IDEA!
    Thank you.



MTC-00025512

From: Andrew Hon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle with Microsoft and you're being had!



MTC-00025513

From: AK Khattab
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams''
    I believe that the settlement is hard but fair. --
    AK Khattab
    Lecturer
    Aerospace Engineering,
    California State University, Long Beach
    Tel: 562 985 4339
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00025514

From: Cebert Shrum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is our opinion that the Microsoft offer should be accepted. 
We think that it is a shame what is being done to this company 
because of their success.
    It is another example of meddling like the case of AT&T. We 
had the best telephone company in the world and now we have a mish-
mash and we get less service and it costs more because of one judge. 
The public is the ones that suffer.
    In this case the public has already suffered because the stock 
is less valuable and if the company is punished more their products 
will suffer and cost more and cause more jobs to go overseas and 
increase unemployment.
    We think it is time to let Microsoft alone.
    Mr. and Mrs. Cebert W. Shrum
    3733 Southern Manor Drive
    St. Louis, Missouri 63125-4478



MTC-00025515

From: DONALD SCHUMAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:19pm
Subject: Microsoft
    To Whom it may Concern: Enough is enough. The government, states 
that continue the lawsuit against Microsoft, and the companies that 
are unwilling to compete on product capability alone (AOL, Sun Micro 
Systems, etc) should be stopped. Let's get on with upgrading 
technology and continuing the capability of company's that are 
willing to develop products that effect positively the rising 
productivity gains caused by technology. Let Microsoft and other 
independents go and produce gains in technology by positive 
development of products rather then hiding behind the court system 
and continuing to file unjustified lawsuits. Let freedom ring!!!!! 
Don Schuman
    [email protected]
    May the best product win. A taxpayer and pro freedom of 
technology person.



MTC-00025516

From: Paul Slagle--WOH email master
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I feel the settlement does not go far enough in penalizing 
Microsoft for their monopolistic actions. It also leaves too many 
specifics out of the document in the area of APIs, middleware, 
``Windows'', and others.
    It is certainly not in the best interests of the public.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Slagle



MTC-00025517

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:21pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am very much for the antitrust settlement between Microsoft, 
the Dept. of Justice etc. This is a very equitable settlement for 
all parties.
    Kathleen Zipperer



MTC-00025518

From: Arnett Doug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:21pm
Subject: Comment on the proposed microsoft settlement
    I think the proposed microsoft antitrust settlement is a joke. I 
don't see any effective remedy in it. Microsoft disregarded the 
spirit of the earlier DOJ agreement, they showed their disregard for 
the Court in the antitrust trial, and with this proposed agreement 
they will be able to escape being held accountable for continuing to 
kill developing technology and competitive companies. You can still 
see their fundamental behavior in their approach to Windows XP and 
Passport in spite of their loss in Court.

[[Page 27647]]

    It is a shame for the Justice Department to have won the battle 
but now under a new administration throw away that victory.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas B. Arnett
    4405 4th Ave NE
    Seattle, WA 98105



MTC-00025519

From: Justin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with this settlement, and do not believe it to be 
a good idea.



MTC-00025520

From: Elly Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:23pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dept of Justice PLEASE agree with the settlement with Microsoft, 
thank you, Elenora Davis, 7652 ``C''
    Plantz Rd Marysville, Calif. 95901.



MTC-00025521

From: Garrett Slagle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:27pm
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 do not think the proposed settlement is in the best interest 
of the public.
    Sincerely,
    Garrett Slagle



MTC-00025522

From: David Horrocks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi there,
    I'm From New Zealand. In a place that is a green beautiful 
country, competitive amongst the best of the world for its tourist 
dollar. Yet in the computer industry our computers here are amongst 
some of the cheapest in the world!! Yet Companies here are dying 
over that competitiveness.
    What is happening to Microsoft I feel is totally wrong? Instead 
of embracing the spirit of what Microsoft has done and inspire 
others to do the same it is being torn down and destroyed so another 
can take its place? I thought the American dream was to prosper and 
be an asset to society and your community. If that is a crime the 
yes Microsoft is wrong. Just because others are late and missed the 
boat and cant get their act together. Instead have to fight and 
proclaim war against others that succeed.
    Are you going to war against Apple now because they are a 
monopoly with their own system? On the other hand, slam Linux users 
because it's free? Please I support what Moorcroft is doing, it's a 
pioneer in the PC and Internet industry, Microsoft have brought it 
into our homes into our lives and as to they help enormously in the 
community, world wide.
    Regards
    A DR Dos user first, now Microsoft user by choice
    David Horrocks
    Desktop Applications Trainer
    with Microsoft, Adobe and Corel software products note: copies 
of this email have been sent to other parties for archival purposes



MTC-00025523

From: Brian Korver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is lousy for everyone but Microsoft!
    -brian



MTC-00025524

From: Gator
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Micrsoft must pay for its sin against the people that want 
choices in there life. It is a human right and must be protected. 
They have skirted the truth and have done everything in there power 
to suppress technological vision unless it is there own. May God 
direct you in your decision.



MTC-00025525

From: Grant Slagle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I do not think the proposed settlement is in the best interest 
of the public.
    Sincerely,
    Grant Slagle



MTC-00025526

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:26pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I feel that Microsoft's monopoly in the software market is 
anticompetitive and anti-consumer and should be corrected by 
requiring them to pub information on their APIs and other portions 
of the Windoze operating system. This would allow other software 
companies to write code that is unimpeded by the interface 
machinations currently being foisted on us by this company. It would 
also make changing from one operating system to another relatively 
painless if the file formats were standardized.
    Thank you for the work you have done on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Adrian D. Carey
    [email protected]



MTC-00025527

From: Samrod Shenassa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:32pm
Subject: Microsoft's Plea Bargain
    To whom it may concern:
    Plea bargains are to take place before trials, when the defense 
enters a guilty plea. Why is Microsoft, after being found guilty of 
multiple anti-trust violations, given a voice in its own punishment?
    The primary goals of any remedial action should be to 1) prevent 
Microsoft from using its marketshare as a tool to succeed over its 
competitors, and 2) seek punitive damages for the success it has 
already enjoyed using those tactics.
    If Microsoft is only prevented from further leveraging Windows 
to destroy future competitors, then it has already won for its past 
actions. Windows has achieved its dominance, Internet Explorer has 
already destroyed Netscape, and Office already beat Lotus and 
WordPerfect. The relative significance to halting future anti-
competitive growth is miniscule compared to what has already been 
achieved.
    Microsoft's competitors should be allowed to again compete on 
equal terms. The trial's initial focal point was the issue of 
Microsoft handcuffing the browser to operating system to destroy 
Netscape. As a remedy, Microsoft should be forced to do exactly what 
it forced Apple to do: bundle both browsers with the OS. It should 
also be forced to unroot Internet Explorer from Windows, giving 
users the freedom to safely uninstall it entirely from the system. 
By shipping Windows with the latest versions of both Netscape and 
Internet Explorer, users have the choice of completely removing 
either, both, or neither browser from their system. If Internet 
Explorer continues to dominate, it will have done so through fair 
competition. To be fair Microsoft should have the choice of either 
bundling both or neither browser with Windows-- but never one.. 
The key is to make acquiring and uninstalling equally easy for both 
browsers. While IE is pre-installed and impossible to uninstall, 
users need to find and download Netscape from the Internet.
    This same requirment can be applied to Windows Media Player, 
RealPlayer, and QuickTime as well. Either bundle all three, or none 
at all. Microsoft should also be forced to adopt the ``Play 
Fair'' policy currently practiced by Real Networks and Apple: 
inform users what media types the player supports; recommend 
alternatives for unsupported media types; give users the option of 
which supported media types to associate with the player; and don't 
adversly affect the functionality of other installed media players.
    Then there's the issue of fair compensation to its competitors, 
which seems to have been completely overlooked in this settlement. 
But that issue may be better settled in Netscape's recent civil case 
against Microsoft. And finally, what was the reason for not breaking 
up Microsoft? In other words, why will the government allow the 
dominant operating sytsem and the dominant Office suite to be in 
control of a single entity? Does the government truly expect 
Microsoft's behavior to change, despite highly questionable actions 
it continues to take to this day, throughout the trial? Has there be 
any thought given to Microsoft's .NET strategy of market domination? 
Will Microsoft ever convert Internet Explorer to a fee-based, 
distributed software model, forcing users to pay a browser fee to 
surf the net? If so, will

[[Page 27648]]

users have the option of chosing Netscape or Opera without losing 
core Windows functionality? Will Microsoft migrate any of the 
operating system's core functionality to a fee-based, distributed 
model, forcing users to pay fees even if they chose 
competitors'' products? With the direction the company is 
already taking with Windows XP and .NET, the answer to those 
questions is clear. Thank you for your time.



MTC-00025528

From: Richard Madril
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Mr. Ashcroft:
    Attached are my comments on the Microsoft case. Before you make 
a decision on this case, please remember all the good things this 
company has done for our country. It is indirectly responsible for 
the success of many other companies. Mr. Gates is very generous with 
his money by helping others as well. Microsoft is responsible for 
the technological revolution that we have had in the past few years. 
The government needs to leave them alone.
    Sara Smith
993 Athens Road
Crawford, GA 30630
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I think it is irresponsible of the government to make such a 
tremendous fuss about Microsoft. I do not believe the government has 
any right to interfere in business. Microsoft has been the means by 
which a great portion of the country has benefited. Bill Gates has 
done about as much for the country as anyone else. Microsoft is not 
an oppressive corporation. Because of the advances Microsoft has 
made, you do not have to be an expert to use a computer. Now, not 
only has suit been brought against Microsoft, but also there are 
those who are not satisfied with the settlement that has been 
reached and are seeking not to serve justice in the matter, but to 
cripple Microsoft.
    Microsoft does not need to be crippled. The settlement that was 
reached last November is perfectly reasonable. It prevents future 
antitrust violations and allows competition within the technology 
industry to return to normal. Microsoft has agreed, for example, to 
refrain from taking retaliatory action against anyone who introduces 
a product into the market that directly competes with Microsoft 
software. Microsoft has also agreed to reformat future versions on 
Windows so that non-Microsoft software will be supported by the 
Windows operating system. This will not only allow its competitors 
the ability to introduce their own software into Windows, it will 
also enable computer makers to use Windows as a platform to market 
their own product.
    I do not believe it is in the best interest of the public to 
continue litigation against the Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft has 
done nothing that would harm the consumer. I urge you to support the 
settlement and allow Microsoft to move on.
    Sincerely,
    Sara Smith



MTC-00025529

From: Jon Grizzle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a Senior Electrical Engineer who thank that Microsoft has 
developed a better product than AOL's Netscape browser. I have used 
the MSN browser and find it very friendly and comprehensive. When I 
complain to Microsoft Support at 
mailto:[email protected] they respond to try and help or 
fix their browser. I pay Verizon $19.95 per month for providing my 
dial up service. However, I use the MSN browser and Microsoft's 
Outlook Express. Also, Microsoft Word, Excel, Access, Visual Basic, 
Power Point, Photo Draw, and other Microsoft applications. I like 
them all because they have been designed to work together and are 
reasonably priced. My son and Mom & Dad like that MSN Messenger 
allows us to save long distance cost to talk daily free. I thank it 
is a shame having to pay for monthly utility bills when some are for 
duplicate services. We pay for Internet across the telephone lines, 
talking over those same lines and talking on a cell phone uses those 
same lines again. Consequently, we get three different bills every 
month for those same phone line coming to our home. Soon those same 
lines will provide TV and many other signals. Homeowners get so many 
different bills, I'm thinking about a total disconnect.
    Back to Microsoft. I like Microsoft and have always thought Bill 
Gates is an angle when compared to Ken Lay of Enron. If the US 
Government has nothing better to do and more money than brains spend 
government time and money bring to court the real crooks like the 
Lays & Andersons of the world. Clean up our elections, and 
outlaw soft money. Tell AOL to quit spending money on lawyers and 
spend their money on R & D. Even if Microsoft lost I would still 
use their products. I would become a stronger believer in Microsoft.
    Regards,
    Jon Grizzle



MTC-00025530

From: garyshade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    The settlement offered by the Bush administration and some 
states was not in the public interest. The antitrust case involved 
abuse of monopoly power by releasing the Windows operating system 
with the Internet Explorer browser embedded into the operating 
system.
    The remedies offered by the Bush administration do not address 
the nature of the case, and would only serve to further reduce 
competition in the schools, one of the last remaining venues where 
competing software can still be found.
    Any sound remedy should separate the Internet Explorer browser 
from the operating system. The remaining states that refuse to 
settle stress this point.
    Each time the government allows Microsoft to release another 
version of Windows with the Internet Explorer browser embedded into 
the operating system, the monopoly path is entrenched further.
    Make the remedy be an actual remedy to the facts of the case.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Shade
    US Citizen and software consumer



MTC-00025531

From: Gregg Christman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    The settlement is extremely fair allowing over a billion dollars 
of computers and free software to low income schools.
    Secondly, I would like to make a very important point to the DOJ 
that seems to exist in LALA land. Microsoft is a business that 
creates products that must be sold to generate profits that in turn 
pays taxes to the Government. No company that exists today or in the 
future is guaranteed success it is not automatic and it is earned, 
so the notion by the by the Federal Government and Microsoft 
competitors (that want to hide behind the courts rather than compete 
in the markets) that Microsoft is a monopoly are wrong. Microsoft 
must go out and compete everyday to win customers by the features 
and benefits of their products. Microsoft is not forcing anyone to 
purchase their software consumers have a choice.
    Finally, I would like to make one more point regarding the Civil 
lawsuit by AOL against Microsoft this week. AOL doesn't have a leg 
to stand on regarding their Netscape and Microsoft's Explorer 
browser. AOL acquired Netscape during the intial law suit and 
bundled Netscape with AOL just as Microsoft had already done and 
they are creating a law suit over a mute point. It is called 
competition and they copied Microsoft's business model and because 
Microsoft had already bundled their browser before AOL'a acquisition 
of Netscape AOL is suing Microsoft. The AOL lawsuit is absolutely 
ridiculous and completely unfounded.
    Gregg Christman [email protected]



MTC-00025532

From: Milorad Golubovich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:33pm
Subject: opinion
    By being design, project and engineering manager for over forty 
years, I knew that creativity and innovation in the work was always 
rewarded.
    If competitors of Microsoft are incapable to be creative and 
develop new product, we should not penalize the Microsoft engineers 
but on the contrary encourage them in their efforts for innovation. 
Only trough the progress in technology we can expect the progress in 
everyday life and preserve our nation technical leadership in the 
world.
    --Milotad Golubovich
    [email protected]
    --EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.

[[Page 27649]]



MTC-00025533

From: John Roth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    No to Microsoft!!!!
    John Roth
    [email protected]



MTC-00025534

From: Gordon McKay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:35pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I'm taking this time to urge you to accept this agreement with 
Microsoft as my wife and I both consider it to be the most equitable 
and fairest way to setttle this Antitrust suit.
    Sincerely Yours
    Gordon C. McKay



MTC-00025535

From: J lowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I'm a concerned citizen who believes Microsoft is being let off 
easy after amassing billions of dollars of illegal profits. Every 
court has ruled that Microsoft violated anti-trust laws, but the 
proposed final judgment falls far short of punishing Microsoft 
adequately. Not only does Microsoft retain its ill-gotten profits, 
but there's no protection in the settlement from future anti-trust 
violations. Microsoft's distribution of its products to schools is 
nothing more than an expansion of the company's monopoly. I urge you 
to rule against the proposed settlement.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Jhana Lowe
    1040 Edgebrook Lane
    Glencoe, IL 60022



MTC-00025536

From: JR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft, through it's monopolistic policies has stifled 
innovation leaving consumers with technology that is years behind 
where it would otherwise be. While I applaud the governments efforts 
to correct this situation the proposed settlement will do little to 
correct the situation.
    The terms of the agreement are too specific and will do nothing 
more than slightly change the manner in which Microsoft bullies the 
industry. Any settlement agreed on by the government should be more 
than a slap on the wrist. Microsoft has been found guilty of 
engaging in monopolistic practices and should be punished 
accordingly. More importantly they should be stopped from 
restricting innovation. Microsoft is becoming the only software 
company in America. This will ultimately hurt this country as other 
nations seek alternatives to Microsoft products and ultimately 
become the ones innovating new technologies.
    Thank you,
    John Rodriguez
    Software Engineer



MTC-00025537

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
January 25, 2002
    To Whom it may concern:
    I don't agree.
    I don't agree with the DOJ's proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
As a physician and consumer of computer hardware/software solutions, 
I have found numerous situations in which the behavior of Microsoft 
impaired my ability to build cost effective solutions to the need 
for computerization of my medical practice. While part of the 
government wants HIPAA compliance miracles, the DOJ apparently 
believes that criminal behavior in Bellvue, Washington is exempt 
from punishment. Yes, criminal behavior, as there appears to be no 
dispute that the antitrust laws were violated. How will the proposed 
settlement repair that damage i.e. ``make me whole''. The 
trivial interventions will not bring back the competitors that would 
have provided me with a wide range of tools. Nor will it provide the 
kind of level playing field that would allow new competitors to 
flourish. Shame upon the lawyers who tout this as good work. If I 
were to lower my standards of practice to that degree, the DEA would 
not renew my narcotic license, I would be barred from Medicare and 
Medicaid practice and the state Board of Medical Examiners would 
start proceedings to pule my license to practice. Yes, I am angry. I 
am mad as (deleted).
    Sincerely,
    David P. Telasha, MD
    10330 SE 32ND AVE
    SUITE 320
    MILWAUKIE, OR 97222-6519
    Voice: (503) 659-3960
    Fax: (503) 659-6607
    Web: NWOBGYN.COM



MTC-00025538

From: Edwin S Oxner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    It's time to stop this foolishness. Why punish successful 
businesses? If a competitor isn't competing, let him die. What 
you're doing to Microsoft is ridiculous. Why not punish WalMart and 
target for putting K-Mart into bankruptcy? What's the difference? Or 
is it that K-Mart management hasn't asked you? Why is it that you 
love capital but hate capitalism?
    Regards,
    Edwin S. Oxner
    Manchaca TX 78652



MTC-00025540

From: Bill Barney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a very bad idea. This settlement 
practically rewards Microsoft instead of punishing them for 
committing the acts they did and does nothing to make sure they they 
cannot and will not commit these acts in the future. The fact that 
such a proposal is even being considered by the DOJ only further 
erodes my belief that the DOJ is actually interested in justice and 
not just political maneuvering.
    Thank you,
    Bill Barney



MTC-00025541

From: Todd Warner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My comments will be brief:
    Microsoft is guilty of abuse of monopolistic power. Central to 
this abuse, as with all anti-trust cases, is the practice of 
building unreasonable competitive barriers for entry into the 
market. The proposed settlement being fought by ``the nine 
states'' is fraught with bad judgement and simply extends 
Microsofts monopology, and more importantly, raises, ever higher, 
that barrier for entry by Micosofts competitors.
    My solution? Good question. I don't have the answer. Probably 
something along the lines of Microsoft being forced to disclose all 
API's of all its software. That is not unreasonable and will allow 
other to compete on, at least somewhat competitive footing. Another 
possible, or additional, solution: open-source all Micosoft code. 
(a) the world would know for sure, how secure Microsofts code truly 
is, (b) competitors would be able to fully harness Microsofts APIs, 
and (c) a lot of intellectual property openly visible would 
stimulate inovation across the industry. Closed-source leads to less 
innovation.
    /odd Warner--
    Tank Commander--NC Army National Guard Software Engineer



MTC-00025542

From: floyd fisher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is nothing more than a chance for 
Microsoft to get a good PR spin out of their predicament. It totally 
goes against the idea of paying for your crimes you have committed. 
Intel was forced to liscense out their chip technology, why can't 
Microsoft be forced to allow other companies to publish and sell 
their own versions of Windows? That would make better sense.
    IMHO.



MTC-00025543

From: Fred E Bird
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    We believe the proposed Microsoft settlement offers a reasonable 
compromise. Please do not litigate it further!!
    Two interested Seniors,
    Fred and Edna Lee Bird
    4270-B Lewis Ave.
    Penney Farms, Florida 32079



MTC-00025544

From: Richard W Carr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement

[[Page 27650]]

    Isn't it about time that these 9 states folded their tents, and 
stop doling out tax payers money to support a ``few 
whiners'' who can't stand up to any competition 
.-.-. That includes Netscape.-.-.- 
Again, if they want a bigger piece of the market, let them get out 
and do something radically different to improve over Microsoft's 
software.-.-.-. Also, maybe they just don't have a 
dynamic marketing organization.-.-.- Let's end it 
now.
    Dick Carr



MTC-00025545

From: charles e chapman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case and allow microsoft to continue making 
my life better. I have been retired for over 20 years and am very 
appreciative of Microsoft and what they have done to make computers 
more friendly.
    Charles Chapman



MTC-00025546

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: DOJ re Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I am deeply distressed that the DOJ, in its proposed antitrust 
settlement with Microsoft, has abandoned any pretense of ending or 
controlling Microsoft's abusive monopoly. In particular:
    BUNDLING--NOT ADDRESSED--PART I.
    I recently purchased a new computer with Windows. I was forced 
by Microsoft's monopoly to purchase Windows bundled with many other 
programs I did not need, as I already had these programs (including 
Web browser, CD writing program, multimedia playing program, etc.). 
Microsoft's spectacular monopoly-controlled profit margins on 
Windows make it abundantly clear that the cost of including such 
extra functions is covered by the charges that I and others pay for 
Windows. Yet, despite ample legal precedent for controlling such 
bundling, DOJ makes no attempt to do so. Please note that I also own 
a Macintosh computer, allowing me to avoid some such charges, but I 
use computers for my consulting business and I am totally forced by 
the monopoly to also own a Windows computer. Hence I am forced by 
the monopoly to pay for whatever bundled extras Microsoft chooses to 
include.
    BUNDLING and ANTICOMPETITIVE PRICING--NOT 
ADDRESSED--PART II.
    By placing no restrictions on bundling, DOJ acknowledges 
Microsoft's right to destroy any competitor at all. As DOJ knows, a 
competitor that is perceived as threatening can be wiped out by 
Microsoft's inclusion of its own competitive software in Windows and 
Microsoft's forcing of the customers to buy Microsofts version, and/
or by Microsoft's use of its monopoly driven wealth to underprice 
competing products. It is an insult to the public that DOJ has 
essentially decided to overturn anti-monopoly laws by allowing such 
business behavior.
    ANTICOMPETITIVE BUSINESS STRUCTURE
    Microsoft's monopoly includes office software as well as 
Windows. Microsoft clearly plans its office software strategy to 
enforce its overall monopoly, even if the office strategy does not 
otherwise make business sense. It is obvious that a separate office 
software business plan would by now include a version of Office for 
Linux, but since Microsoft sees Linux as a competitor to Windows it 
is happy to otherwise damage its office software potential in order 
to protect its monopoly. DOJ, by making no attempt to control this 
behavior (which would probably require splitting Microsoft), is 
allowing illegal anticompetitive behavior.
    SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE TOO-LIMITED PROPOSED REMEDY
    In section III.C.1 and elsewhere the remedy 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 .-.-.''
    This exclusion says that Microsoft, at its own discretion, may 
take monopoly ownership of any software functionality it chooses. It 
can do this trivially and without restriction by including all 
reasonable access methods to the functionality in its Windows 
documentation. Any Windows user knows there are often many methods 
to reach the same functionality. Microsoft can list, and hence 
reserve to itself, all reasonable access methods and make it too 
confusing or complex to users to reach the functionality provided by 
a different vendor. Microsoft is making a complete fool of DOJ by 
slipping in this exception.
    Section III.H.2 is greviously, egregioiusly, outrageously (I 
could go on .-.-.) defective. This section turns the 
Internet over to Microsoft. It says that Microsoft can implement its 
own non-standard Internet protocols, accessible only by Microsoft's 
Windows software, and make the non-standard protocols look 
``standard'' to the Windows (only) user by having 
Microsoft's software jump in if the customer has been so independent 
as to dare to use software, even on Windows, from another vendor. 
Again Microsoft is making a fool of DOJ with this exception. Without 
this exception, Microsoft's non-standard protocols would be awkward 
and have difficulty in the marketplace, but this allows them to 
leverage their monopoly without restriction to force these on the 
public. If this holds, then 10 years from now as the pundits ask, 
``How did Microsoft gain control of the Internet?'' they 
will look to DOJ's approval of this exception as the cause! With 
great disappointment in your anti-public, contrary-to-law, 
settlement proposal.
    Richard Scarlet
    [email protected]
    Massachusetts
    (Small business owner, not in the computer or software business 
except as an end user.)



MTC-00025547

From: Harvey Lange
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hash: SHA1
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs. 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.
    Have you looked to see what operating systems choices are 
offered from DELL or Gateway? It does not matter if you are 
purchasing a new or a refurbished PC, your selection for an 
operating system is limited to Microsoft Windows 2000/ME/XP. You 
cannot even order one of these systems without an Operating System. 
If you buy a system from one of these two vendors, then you must 
also purchase a Microsoft Operating System to go with it. Even if 
your old system is crashed and you just want to replace it and 
install the software (with license) you already have, you can't. 
Why, because they have to and can only ship Windows.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white box'' 
OEMs, if they offer competing products.
    I cannot purchase a ``Home Brew'' PC from most local 
computer stores with a Windows Operating System installed even if I 
have an original license and CD. When asked why, I get various 
reasons like ``we don't think your license is real'', or 
``we can only install Windows if we sell you the 
license'', and in one case they admitted ``we don't want 
to risk being sued by Microsoft''. It is much safer to sell PCs 
without operating systems and avoid legal hassles because they 
cannot afford the legal fees. The government appears to be 
protecting the big corporations and not the small businesses.
    Thank you.
    Harvey Lange
    Toney, AL



MTC-00025548

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    In light of the recent events concerning Enron, can the DOJ move 
beyond this rediculous anti-trust suit against Microsoft? Enough is 
enough. It seems Americans are penalized no matter what they do in 
an effort to save money for their futures. Not only do we have to 
struggle to make ends meet with exorbitant medical costs for health 
coverage, but we also must be penalized by watching our investments 
deteriorate because the government has decided to spend years trying 
to prove something--what exactly, no one is sure, not even the 
DOJ. One judge thinks Microsoft and Bill Gates are the Hitlers of 
the business world; the other judge tells the two sides the thing 
can be resolved out of court.
    Meanwhile, dishonesty commited by a behemoth energy company on a 
scale seldom seen in recent times, has gone on, unnoticed

[[Page 27651]]

by the DOJ, because? ? ? ? ? ? ? Why ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
    Please, end this fruitless pursuit and let Americans enjoy their 
computers, their investments, and regain a sense of confidence in 
``just for all.''
    Linette Widen



MTC-00025549

From: Beth DeHaven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have worked in this industry for 25 years. Anyone that 
believes Microsoft has harmed the consumer has got to be kidding. 
Microsoft has driven the cost of computing down to the point that 
those of us trying to sell technology solutions can barely make a 
living. It has been GREAT for the consumer. I only wish Microsoft 
would enter the furniture or clothing markets. Maybe then those 
goods would operate on a more reasonable profit model. I believe 
that the DOJ case in great part is the result of a bunch of 
competitors that can't figure out a better way to try to improve 
their market position. Consumers will decide if they don't want to 
do business with a particular company. Get it out of the courts. 
This case needs to be behind us. Settle it in a fair manner and then 
maybe my technology stock portfolio will start to improve. This case 
is like a dark cloud over the entire tech industry.



MTC-00025550

From: Ken Howells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    Allowing Microsoft to put more of their systems into schools, 
where students will only get more used to Microsoft systems and less 
exposure to alternatives, such as Linux, which I use extensively, is 
not a punishment for their monopolistic practices at all--it is 
a reward.
    Please find a way to actually disciplin Microsoft for their 
breach of ethics, and also find ways to force them to allow 
realistic competition. The fact that computer viruses which only 
affect Microsoft systems sweep through the internet more and more 
often, crippling many businesses for hours or days, shows undeniably 
the folly of having too much of the economic infrastructure relying 
on one system. Genetic diversity is a powerful defensive weapon in 
the biological world. Operating system diversity would serve as a 
similar defense in the digital world.
    Best Regards,
    Ken Howells
    Crestline, CA
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025551

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:55pm
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,
    chris weiss
    pobox 142
    sandia park, NM 87047



MTC-00025552

From: Samuel S. Lung
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern
    I am writing to state my point of view on the Microsoft 
settlement case. When technology is developing at such a speedy 
pace, holding back a leader for years will hurt the competitive edge 
of US companies in the world market place.
    The other countries subsidize their companies to compete 
internationally while the US suppress their own. Foreign countries 
will not hold back but join in the kill of America's best. To 
improve our sick economy we need to help US companies to compete in 
the world marketplace. Some European countries are joining in the 
lawsuit against Microsoft and this really hurts to hear this kind of 
news.
    The lawsuit has been dragged on long enough, for the sake of the 
US economy and the unemployed, I recommend the Department of Justice 
to settle the case with Microsoft.
    This will have a bigger effect on the economy than the numerous 
rate reductions by the Federal Reserve.
    Best regards,
    Samuel Lung



MTC-00025553

From: ELLIOTT F CHARD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:58pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I urge that the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT to accept without further 
litigation, the proposed compromise settlement being considered. 
Further litigation would only feather the nests of Microsofts 
competitors, the Attorneys involved, Lobbyists, and those who would 
further punish Microsoft. I feel any further action would be 
detrimental to Seniors like myself in the use of our home computers.
    Sincerely
    Elliott F. Chard
    CC:[email protected]@ inetgw,cristina_ 
[email protected]@...



MTC-00025554

From: Francis Ketner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    We recommend that the proposed compromised settlement of the 
microsoft case be approved. This will provide many opportunities for 
seniors to have the privilege of using the internet. We have 
webtv.net and are able to communicate with our family and friends 
across North America as well as any place in the world. Also, many 
helps for health and life information are very helpful. We can be 
connected with the whole new world.
    Thank you in advance for your consideration.
    F,D.Ketner



MTC-00025555

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is wrong for Microsoft or any other company infringe on laws 
with they have broken many many time. please send a message to 
Microsoft that breaking the law



MTC-00025556

From: Stephen Granadosin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stephen Granadosin
    16230 NE 99th Street
    Redmond, WA 98052
    January 25, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The issue has been 
dragged out for too long now, and it is time to put an end to it. 
Now that a settlement is available, I think the government should 
accept it. Competitors think that Microsoft has gotten off easy, but 
this is simply not true. The settlement was reached after extensive 
negotiation with a court-appointed mediator, and Microsoft actually 
agreed to terms that extend to products and procedures that were not 
even mentioned in the suit. To assure Microsoft's compliance with 
the terms of the settlement, a technical committee will be set up to 
monitor Microsoft. The terms of the settlement are fair, and a 
structure has been created to assure that Microsoft follows the new 
rules.
    Microsoft and the technology industry need to move forward, but 
in order to move forward this issue needs to be put in the past. 
Please support the Microsoft antitrust settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Granadosin



MTC-00025557

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 27652]]

Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of 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 Sundt
    4201 Hedgewood Dr.
    Bloomington, IN 47403



MTC-00025558

From: Jim Bond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From Washington State. I say that the government is not doing 
anything near what they should be doing to stop Microsoft's terrible 
``business'' practices.



MTC-00025560

From: Lundebrek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a student and a developer of website targeted design and 
content creations. I feel that Microsoft Corporation has 
consistently proven itself to be a cruel and anti-competitive 
corporation, and that the proposed settlement will not substantially 
prevent them from continuing their current business practices.
    Dustin Lundebrek
    Morris, Minnesota



MTC-00025561

From: Dane Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do we really need another toothless consent decree? In fact that 
would be bad enough, but the current settlement is actively harmful. 
It basically legitimizes many harmful practices of Microsoft. One of 
my personal favorites would have to be the part of the settlement 
that allows Microsoft to exclude documentation of anything relating 
to security (which any security expert will tell you is the exact 
wrong way to go about security [1]). With Microsofts recent 
announcement that they are now (after 20 years) finally really 
focusing on security, they can now exclude anything they want by 
claiming ``it's for security''. Am I mistaken? I thought 
Microsoft was found to be a monopoly that has abused it's power. The 
punishment for actions has nothing to do with how much time has 
passed, or whether the market is the same or different. The remedy 
needs to contain effective measures that will allow competition to 
re-emerge in the computer software market. [2] I think there are 
many things that could be done to help re-establish competition and 
innovation.
    Quoting from Dennis Powell ( [email protected] ) 
in his article ``Speak Now or Ever After . . . Regret Your 
Silence''
    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. 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.
    In addition to these I feel that Microsoft should not be allowed 
to buy other companies or technologies from other companies. 
Microsoft very loudly proclaims to have to innovated extensively, 
and yet when you look, nearly every successful recent product has 
been bought from somewhere else. Let them compete against other 
companies on a fair level. Microsoft should be fined their cash 
reserves. No other company keeps such a large cash reserve. It would 
seem this is partly a tax advoidance mechanism[3], and partly to 
have a lot of cash on hand to facilitate take-over of other 
industries of companies. [4] Why should a criminal be allowed to 
keep their ill gotten gains?
    [1] It is called ``security through obscurity''. Most 
security experts refer to it as this with derision.
    [2] I remember a time when I had a choice in office suites. A 
time when I could buy an x86 computer without a Microsoft OS on it.
    [3] The income from dividends is taxed differently than income 
from stock gains. http://www.cptech.org/ms/
rn2bg20020104dividend.html
    [4] For an example of this, see Microsoft's selling of the X-Box 
at a loss to break into the game console market. Why can they do 
this? Because they have huge cash reserves from their illegal 
actions.
    Dane Jackson--B.Sc. Computer Engineering
    Profanity is the one language all programmers know best.



MTC-00025562

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bobby L. Whitehurst
2803 Creek Bend Court
McKinney, Texas 75070
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylnania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I want to give my support to the settlement that was reached in 
November between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. After 
three years of litigation, it is time to wrap this up and move 
forward in the interest of our economy.
    The settlement's provisions clearly show that Microsoft did not 
get off easy, and in fact, made many concessions. Microsoft has 
agreed to design future versions of Windows to provide a mechanism 
to make it easy for computer makers, consumers and software 
developers to promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. This 
gives consumers the freedom to easily add or remove access to 
features built in to Windows or to non-Microsoft software. In 
addition, Microsoft's compliance will be monitored by a three-member 
Technical Committee to be created by the settlement.
    Our economy is hurting right now and continuing this litigation 
will only add roadblocks to a future recovery. Microsoft is too 
critical to the business community and the economy to hamper their 
technological innovation any longer. So I urge you to take no 
further action on the federal level.
    Sincerely,
    Bobby Whitehurst
    cc:Representative Dick Armey
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025563

From: James Wood
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/25/02 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Wood
240 Oak Tree Ave
Salem, IL 62881-3550
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 27653]]

U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall 
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more 
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    James R. Wood



MTC-00025564

From: Andrew Shafer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to state to you my comments on the current Microsoft 
court settlement.
    Punishing corporations for being too successful is counter-
productive and discourages individuals from innovating and creating. 
It casts a long, dubious shadow on the software industry that says, 
``Succeed, but don't work too hard, that will cause 
trouble.'' I urge you to pass the anti-trust settlement in an 
effort to help all parties involved. A quick, fair ending will 
ensure continued innovation in the software industry and stimulate 
economic growth through sales in new markets.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Shafer
    46867 265th St.
    Sioux Falls, SD 57106-7040
    [email protected]



MTC-00025565

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Suit
    I have written to you before on this issue and I support the 
proposed settlement that has been reached with the DOJ and half of 
the states. You should close this case out by supporting this 
settlement. AOL has now muddied the water. The term ``cry 
baby'' comes to mind when I look at what they are trying to do. 
AOL needs to receive two messages. ``Do good in the market 
place and you will be rewarded'' and ``The courts should 
not bail you out if you fail in the market place.'' AOL needs 
to receive both of these messages loud and clear. I am thinking of 
changing from AOL as my ISP. Please, let Microsoft get on with the 
business of providing quality products at ever decreasing prices to 
the consuming public. I have no strong relationship with either MS 
or AOL. I probably own some of each stock in index funds.
    Very truly yours,
    Bob Andrews
    1864 Castle Oaks Court
    Walnut Creek, CA 94595-2358
    925-933-6569
    925-933-8991 (Fax)



MTC-00025566

From: Pat Ivie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:11pm
Subject: suit/antitrust
    Enough if enough. It is time to stop hounding Microsoft because 
they are successful in marketing their products. Why should we 
subsidize those who cannot compete? Patricia S. Ivie



MTC-00025567

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:07pm
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,
    Timothy Alvaro
    902 E Sixth St
    Royal Oak, MI 48067-2818



MTC-00025568

From: Nancy S. Goroff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my concern at the proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft vs. U.S. antitrust case. The court has found that 
Microsoft illegally used its monopoly power, yet the settlement as 
it stands provides litte assurance that Microsoft will end this 
behavior. In fact, predatory monopoly bullying is the norm for 
Microsoft. The settlement needs to have significant muscle behind it 
to get Microsoft to change its corporate strategy and culture. As 
written, the settlement lacks an effective enforcement mechanism.
    In addition, the wording of the settlement is overly narrow, 
making it easy for Microsoft to claim that next year's products are 
outside the scope of the agreement. Terms such as ``API'' 
and ``middleware'' are defined in limited ways that do not 
apply to all current Microsoft products. Also, Microsoft is 
supposedly required to provide information to possible competitors, 
but only in limited form, and at times late in the product 
development cycle.
    In short, the settlement is full of loopholes, and even then it 
is not easily enforced. Consumers like me need more protection from 
anticompetitive behaviour. The settlement should be rejected in 
favor of something better.
    Sincerely yours,
    Nancy Goroff Whitney
    Setauket, NY 11733



MTC-00025569

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Brian Feeney
    12611 Rose Ave.
    Los Angeles, CA 90066-1519



MTC-00025570

From: Christa Kocher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:13pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Please do not settle with Microsoft. The current settlement is 
unacceptable becuase a majority of schools use Macintosh computers, 
for which the current settlement would be worthless.
    Microsoft is a trust to the true definition of the word. You 
cannot buy a PC computer that does not have windows and the inherent 
internet explorer already installed on it. Please. We must put a 
stop to these deplorable business practices.
    Sincerely,
    Christa M. Gruber

[[Page 27654]]



MTC-00025571

From: Jeff Mao
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to say that allowing MS to give money and/or 
equipment to the educational system without restrictions simply 
furthers their dominance in the market. In addition, as a 
professional educator who is in charge of integrating technology 
into education, MS products are rarely my first choice. Everyone 
knows that the total cost of ownership for a windows PC is far 
higher than for a Macintosh computer. If computers are thrust upon a 
school without prior planning and an installed support structure 
will only waste time and money. The computers wil probably collect 
dust as the schools in greatest need will not have the funds to 
support the computers or train their faculty.
    I think MS should pay out, but perhaps placing that money into a 
fund similar to the E-rate funds. Those fund then can be given out 
to schools that need it after they have shown both need and a plan 
to use it. Allow them to spend it on anything technological in the 
same way E-rate is used for anything related to telecommunications. 
Further, 1 Billion dollars seems to be too small an amount for a 
company like Microsoft. If my company made as much money as 
Microsoft, then having to pay out 1 Billion dollars wouldn't bother 
me. It would just be part of the cost of doing business, but it 
would not change my practices. Bill Gates and his wife alone gave 
over 20 Billion dollars away last year in charity,...so what do you 
think 1 Billion dollars for the entire corporation is going to do? 
Nothing! Increase the fine to something significant so that the 
company will think again about how they do business. A mere slap on 
the hand will change nothing. And put the money into a fund that is 
managed by an outside group, perhaps the government,...perhaps, to 
ease the cost of administration, simply make them put Billions of 
dollars into the E-Rate fund. There is already an established 
structure so it wouldn't add any work or labor or cost,...but it 
would allow those schools that really need the funding to get it. 
Perhaps it would allow more schools in need to be able to pay for 
internal wiring and connectivity. It would allow them to reallocate 
their own funds to purchase the computers and software, the training 
and support,...and leave the wires, connectivity etc to the E-Rate.
    Thanks for listening,
    Jeff Mao
    Technology Coordinator
    Allendale Columbia School
    519 Allens Creek Road
    Rochester, NY 14618
    585-381-4560 x262
    585-383-1191 FAX
    [email protected]



MTC-00025572

From: Andrew Anchev
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:14pm
Subject: Microsoft DOJ settlement
    I would like to voice my support for the DOJs settlement with 
Microsoft. I would like to state for the record that I am no nor 
never have been employed by Microsoft or any of it's contractors, 
nor do I hold stock in the company or have any other vested 
financial interest. I have been in the technology industry as a 
consumer for the last 12 years, and I believe that Microsoft should 
not be hindered in their attempts to constantly improve and add new 
abilities to their products. If we begin to apply limitations on 
what Microsoft can add into their operating system, then we should 
place the same restrictions on all other operating system vendors.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Anchev
    San Jose, Ca.



MTC-00025573

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read the text of the proposed settlement, as well as 
various opinions and analyses appearing in the on-line press, and I 
believe the proposal as it exists is very, very weak. Weak to the 
point of irrelevance, even. Where is the penalty? What price must 
Microsoft pay for having broken the law? There is nothing here that 
is going to prevent or even discourage MS from continuing to bully 
their own customers. There is nothing here that is going to 
substantially alter the relationship between MS and their 
competitors. History has shown that once MS decides to integrate a 
piece of software into Windows, the competition quickly vanishes. 
How can anybody compete against something that is being given away? 
If there is to be a thriving, innovative, competitive software 
industry MS must be prevented from stealing their competitors 
customers in this way. The only real, effective, long-term solution 
I can see is to break the company up. To attempt to police MS in the 
long term is simply not practical. The bureaucracy that would have 
to be created to do this effectively would be enormous.
    I am extremely dissapointed in the DoJ. I feel they have sold us 
out, and I hope the Judge sees it too.
    M Hale
    average computer user



MTC-00025574

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:13pm
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,
    David Beasley
    Rt 1 Box 29a
    Beaver, OK 73932



MTC-00025575

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Helen Lydic
    264 Haskell Rd.
    Coudersport, PA 16915-7945



MTC-00025576

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Charles Obermeyer
    611 The Cape Blvd.
    Wilmington, NC 28412-3422

[[Page 27655]]



MTC-00025577

From: Allen Austin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:07pm
Subject: microsft settlement
    Sir,
    The attached letter best states my view on the recent events in 
the courts concerning the operating practices of Microsoft.



MTC-00025577--0001

Allen Austin
5301 Plomondon Street, Apt. E20
Vancouver, WA 98661-8501
January22,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support the Microsoft antitrust settlement reached by your 
Department, nine states, and Microsoft with the help of a court-
appointed mediator. I agree with the 32 states that decided that 
this suit should never have been brought in the first place. More 
than anything else, the suit seems driven by of envy and jealousy of 
Bill Gates, his success, his widely used innovations, his billions 
of dollars, and his millions of happy customers.
    I am one of those happy customers. I have freely chosen 
Microsoft products because I really like the ease of use and 
increased functionality I have seen from using them. I use Microsoft 
Windows, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and Microsoft Works. With 
Works I have made templates for my repetitive tasks, and designed my 
own checkbook program, which, thanks to the Microsoft software, has 
perfect arithmetic.
    The settlement will make easier for Microsoft's competitors to 
integrate their products into Windows, by giving them information 
about Windows interfaces and server protocols, and making it easier 
to add or delete the programs and features Microsoft includes in 
Windows, such as Internet Explorer--which is my browser of 
choice. Everyone should have freedom--freedom of choice and 
freedom to innovate.
    Your support for the settlement is crucial. America will benefit 
from the resulting increased cooperation and innovation within the 
American computer industry. Thank you for your support. And as a 
member of the public, thank you for your consideration of my 
comments.
    Sincerely,
    Allen Austin



MTC-00025577--0002



MTC-00025578

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:13pm
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,
    ROSE MARIE TAFLIN
    2525 IROQUOIS CIR.
    WPB, FL 33409-7216



MTC-00025579

From: efduhr1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public interest? There is 
one problem I see in the III. A. 2. provision barring retaliation 
toward OEMs ``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''. The instance of selling Intel-compatible PCs with 
only one, non-Microsoft, operating system is not considered; it 
appears Microsoft could retaliate against OEMs who sold PCs equipped 
this way. For a settlement in the public interest, let the public 
buy its PCs equipped with whatever operating system they desire, and 
without consequence to the vendors, from Microsoft, for providing 
them.
    Now going to III. J. 2. (c), where is the consideration for 
entities that do not happen to be profit-oriented businesses? 
Striking internet examples are Apache and Perl, both widely used, 
both developed by non-profit organizations. Since such an 
organization would have to meet ``standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business,'' Microsoft can deny licenses or access to APIs, 
communications protocols and documentation, as the Proposed Final 
Judgment is now written. I don't see that it is in the public 
interest to exclude the non-profits from the remedies of the PFJ.
    Thank you for accepting my comments, under the provision of the 
Tunney Act.
    Edward Duhr 25 Jan 2002
    2553 Larkin Road 45
    Lexington, KY 40503



MTC-00025580

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:17pm
Subject: Concerns regarding Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is time to move on with the business of business 
and stop listening to the complaints of Microsoft competitors who 
have failed in the marketplace. Please end this tremendous waste of 
money by both Federal and State Governments, as well as wasting the 
time, money and energy of one of the few very successful American 
companies that make a positive impact on the overall economy.
    Thanks,
    Michael Vandellos
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025581

From: Milton Karafilis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It's time to accept the settlement and get the economy going 
again.
    Milt Karafilis



MTC-00025582

From: Hanneli Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    ATTENTION: JUDGE COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
    Please settle the lawsuit between Microsoft Corp and the 
government as soon as possible. I believe it would benefit the 
consumer and the economy. As a tax payor, I feel that the government 
has wasted a lot of money on a lawsuit that should of been settled 
long ago. Let's do something productive with our tax money.
    I'm self-employed and have been using computers since the early 
80's. Computer programs were very difficult to master. Microsoft 
created software that has improved my productivity and my life.
    I urge you to help settle the lawsuit. Thank you for listening.
    Sincerely,
    Bill & Hanneli Turner
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025583

From: King Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    In my opinion Microsoft is doing a great service in creating a 
uniform platform with many convinces. Let them do what the need to 
do. Go Microsoft!!!
    Nancy Wright



MTC-00025584

From: King Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Leave Microsoft alone. They are doing a great Job!
    King Wright



MTC-00025585

From: Mark Farley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my discontent at the light punishment 
proposed to be shown to Microsoft after their having been found to 
abuse their monopoly position. While it is not illegal to be a 
monopoly, it is critical to the health of the US and world economies 
that companies in a monopoly position are not allowed to use their 
unusual position anti-competitively to disrupt the invention process 
and ruin the possible success of competitors. Maintenance of a 
monopoly

[[Page 27656]]

position in the marketplace should only be legally held by 
continuing to offer superior products and services, and not through 
the undermining of potential competition.
    I soundly reject Microsoft's argument that their behavior has 
been good for consumers. If you kill my neighbor, take his home, and 
give a dollar of what you have stolen from him to me, you cannot 
argue that I am better off. (This is particularly true if I needed 
him to help jump-start my car tomorrow.) We will never know how well 
Netscape and a number of other companies that have been assassinated 
by Microsoft may have fared on a level playing field.
    Proposed settlements at the state level have ludicrously seemed 
to actually reward and extend the monopolistic abuse rather than 
give it cause to reconsider its behavior. Thank God for the wisdom 
of the judge who saw the proposal for what it was.
    I can only hope that Microsoft is punished fairly, but very 
firmly, in a manner that stops cold the abuses of the past. If only 
a trivial price need be paid for destroying a competitor through 
illegal action, then no lesson is learned; Only a fair market value 
of extinguishing competition will have been determined. Microsoft 
needs to learn that the price is more than they can afford to pay 
next time. A cost of only a few hundred million dollars is easily 
passed on to customers at the next program update and the abuses 
will continue.
    I think an amount equal to a year or two of earnings is not too 
little, nor too much. They will survive.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Regards,
    Mark Farley
    1819 Alta Vista Avenue
    Austin, Texas 78704



MTC-00025586

From: (060)Bradley A. Singletary(062)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement in the U.S. versus Microsoft case falls short of 
the mark. Microsoft must allow other companies to compete in their 
market. Microsoft must take responsibility for it's actions in the 
computer industry.
    As an informed computer user/developer/researcher, I would 
hesitate to suggest that the U.S. government back a corporation that 
generates revenue by encouraging stagnation in the american software 
community. The settlement fails to inhibit or accurately classify 
Microsoft's behaviour. Therefore, do not accept the settlement as it 
stands.
    Bradley A. Singletary
    Ph.D. Student in Computer Science
    Atlanta, GA



MTC-00025587

From: David and Shara Danziger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Please grant approval to the settlement of the Microsoft suit. 
This is the most straightforward and fairest settlement likely to 
emerge from this. It is time to put this sorry episode in the past 
and let Microsoft and its competitors settle things in the 
marketplace rather than having to focus on fighting lawsuits.
    Sincerely,
    David Danziger; [email protected]



MTC-00025588

From: Eric Rounds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello;
    I want to place my public opinion with the others against 
Microsoft.
    I believe Microsoft has monopolized the computing industry both 
on the personal/consumer and professional levels. I do not feel that 
all of their products are ``popular'' as they advertise. 
They buy or crush all competition, and offer poor products with 
unattractive and faulty interfaces. But many of use do not have 
another choice, because Microsoft has dominated 95% of the industry. 
I feel that my choices have been increasingly limited to Microsoft, 
or Microsoft. Not because they have a good product, they don't. It's 
because they are everywhere. There are other alternatives. But not 
as ``supported'' as Microsoft. I say 
``supported'' because, again, who else has the strength in 
the market? I would personally like to see Microsoft broken up so 
that XBox, Windows, Expedia, and all the other crappy things they 
chuck out can compete fairly. If they each have to support there own 
marketing, then other competitors might have a better chance. This 
will give use consumers more choice, it will increase higher quality 
of products, and make me happy.
    Thank You,
    Eric Rounds



MTC-00025589

From: MORRIS KAY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:24pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Enough is enough.... The proposed settlement by Microsoft, in my 
opinion, is not only fair, but generous....
    Lets stop the bleeding by all, and accept the settlement offer. 
[email protected]



MTC-00025590

From: Michael C. Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:23pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    to Whom it may concern:
    I am personally very concerned over the Microsoft settlement. It 
appears that the judgement allows Microsoft to continue their 
predatory business practices without penalty. I am concerned a 
verdict without significant consequences for Microsoft will allow 
the company to continue extinguishing innovation, and competition 
over a broadening swath of our culture.
    -Michael Thomas



MTC-00025591

From: Jerome J Donaldson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft is reasonable 
and proper and this litigation should be drawn to a close now. I 
also believe that any further delay will continue to have a negative 
effect on the economy.
    I am a retired senior and much of my enjoyment is in using my 
computer.
    Thank you,
    Jerome J. Donaldson
    6212 Hobart Avenue
    Las Vegas, NV 89107-1326
    (702) 878-9295
    [email protected]



MTC-00025592

From: Arthur J Sather
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sirs;
    It looks to me that Microsoft was singled out by its jealous 
competitors and sympathetic government bureaucrats because of it's 
success.
    I concur with the Senior's Coalition that the proposed 
settlement offers a reasonable compromise that will enhance the 
ability of Seniors and all Americans to access the Internet and use 
innovative software products.
    God with the settlement agreed with the Government and nine 
state and end this costly and damaging litigation.
    This settlement will have a positive impact on the American 
economy and help pull us out of the recession.
    Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few 
wealthy competitors's attorneys and special interest bigwigs!
    Sincerely,
    Arthur J. Sather
    11296 So. Clara Anita DR.
    Yuma, Az. 85367



MTC-00025593

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    Donna Rott
    1000 Co. Rd. 1400 N

[[Page 27657]]

    Henry, IL 61537-9438



MTC-00025594

From: gary lin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27pm
Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the agreement reached between Microsoft and DOJ 
and the nine States is good enough to close the case. We have more 
important things to do than trying to do a ``perfect'' job 
that everybody likes. The subject of safety of our society against 
terrorists far outweight the last penny of the settlement. We should 
divert this energy to better protect our freedom.
    God bless America.
    Gary Lin



MTC-00025595

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:25pm
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,
    Carl Rott
    1000 Co. Rd. 1400 N
    Henry, IL 61537-9438



MTC-00025596

From: James R. Van Zandt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    The proposed disclosure of APIs is not enough to allow free and 
open competition in the development of applications and middleware. 
Here are four significant defects:
    The disclosure is too late. If API documentation is only 
released at the ``last major beta test'' of a new product, 
then any competing product would start with a handicap of several 
months, which in the software industry amounts to most of a 
generation. There is also no assurance that Microsoft would continue 
to use historical patterns of beta testing. It could, for example, 
use a series of test versions each released to only 140,000 beta 
testers. None of these releases would then trigger the disclosure of 
the APIs.
    Potentially significant exclusions. Excluded are ``anti-
piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, 
encryption or authentication systems''. Without question, 
Microsoft has legitimate needs in these areas. However, it is well 
known in the computer security field that ``security by 
obscurity'' can work only temporarily. True security is based 
instead on open protocols and implementations that can be studied, 
criticized, and improved by many developers. On the other hand, 
Microsoft can claim that almost any API or protocol has some 
relevance to piracy, virus protection, authentication, etc. If 
necessary some authentication measures could be added to ensure 
this. This would give Microsoft an excuse not to disclose those 
APIs.
    Implementation roadblocks. If someone does implement a protocol 
or API which Microsoft claims has anti-piracy etc. relevance, then 
Microsoft can require them to pay a third party to test it. 
Microsoft could easily use this requirement to delay and financially 
burden the small companies and independent programmers that have 
provided so many innovations in the software industry.
    Excluded business areas. The agreement addresses only software 
for ``personal computers'', apparently permitting 
Microsoft to set up new monopolies in software for ``servers, 
television set top boxes, handheld computers, game consoles, 
telephones, pagers, and personal digital assistants'', which 
``are examples of products that are not Personal Computers 
within the meaning of this definition''.
    For these reasons among others, I believe the proposed agreement 
would not effectively prevent Microsoft from maintaining its 
monopoly in personal computer operating system software, or from 
setting up new monopolies in other business areas.
    --James R. Van Zandt



MTC-00025597

From: John Royo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    Since 1986 I have used the Apple Macintosh platform to perform 
my work.
    I find that Microsoft not only stifles competition, but also 
limits functionality for the consumer. It's operating system, and 
software are flawed in code and performance. The fact of Microsoft's 
shear wealth only is the entity able to stop encroachment to its 
market share by startup's and lesser size companies who do not 
possess the financial resources to fight this monopoly and it's sub-
prime products.
    Thank you again.
    Sincerely,
    John Royo
    John J. Royo, III
    Financial Resources, Inc. / S.A. Funding Group, Ltd.
    [email protected]
    www.safunding.com
    Providing capital to commercial and medical businesses.
    Member: BNI (Business Network International) Bethesda Friday 
Breakfast
    Chapter
    7476 Merrymaker Way, PMB 118A
    Elkridge, MD 21075-6887
    voice 410-379-6900
    Toll Free: 877-311-6736
    efax 928-447-9800 (preferred fax)
    fax 410-579-4750
    I reward for referrals!



MTC-00025598

From: Michael Phillips
To'' Microsoft ATR
Date'' 1/25/02 10:42pm
Subject'' Microsoft Settlement
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I work in the financial services industry. I see first-hand the 
economic consequences of ``world events''. One of the 
events that negatively affected this country's economy was the 
antitrust suit brought against
    Microsoft. This suit was very unfair. It was a pure political 
decision; based on the fact Microsoft has deep pockets and failed to 
have a lobbying group in Washington. I think it is unfortunate that 
the world works this way, but Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice did settle. Now it is time to move on. The reason I urge you 
to approve this settlement is the importance of Microsoft to this 
country's economy. The ``economic slowdown'' we are 
experiencing can be partially traced to the indictment against 
Microsoft.
    The day of the indictment, the stock markets plummeted. Sir our 
economy will improve, but if we can remove the dark cloud of 
uncertainty regarding this settlement from the picture, things will 
improve much faster.
    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 urge you, as someone who is very knowledgeable about our 
economy to give your approval to the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft settlement. Thank you.
    IF MERGEFIELD PARA4 Ecce homo ergo elk. La Fontaine knew his 
sister, and knew her bloody well.<>
    Sincerely,
    Michael Phillips
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I work in the financial services industry. I see first-hand the 
economic consequences of ``world events''. One of the 
events that negatively affected this country's economy was the 
antitrust suit brought against Microsoft. This suit was very unfair. 
It was a pure political decision; based on the fact Microsoft has 
deep pockets and failed to have a lobbying group in Washington. I 
think it is unfortunate that the world works this way, but Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice did settle. Now it is time to move on. 
The

[[Page 27658]]

reason I urge you to approve this settlement is the importance of 
Microsoft to this country's economy. The ``economic 
slowdown'' we are experiencing can be partially traced to the 
indictment against Microsoft. The day of the indictment, the stock 
markets plummeted.
    Sir our economy will improve, but if we can remove the dark 
cloud of uncertainty regarding this settlement from the picture, 
things will improve much faster. I urge you, as someone who is very 
knowledgeable about our economy to give your approval to the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Phillips



MTC-00025599

From: Alexandra Radbil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02-emsp;10:30pm
Subject: Comments on Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my views on the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. My concerns stem from the fact that the settlement 
favors Microsoft and does not recognize the problems inherent in the 
settlement for the consumer and for the computer industry. There 
seems to be no recognition that the ``remedies'' do not 
allow for open competition and innovation, but allow Microsoft to 
continue to dominate the playing field.
    Are there any protections for existing open source programs and 
operating systems such as Linux? I don't think so. Without these 
protections the consumers lose because there is little opportunity 
for healthy and innovative competition.
    Thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts on this 
important issue.
    Alexandra Radbil
    Project Director
    Princeton Strategy Consultants, Inc.
    103 Carnegie Center Suite 113
    Princeton, NJ 08540
    (609) 452--8669--Voice
    (609) 452--1017--Fax



MTC-00025600

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    Isn't it time we moved forward? Let's settle and figure out what 
happened at Enron please...
    Tony Marraro



MTC-00025601

From: Joyce C Allenton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is of special public interest to end and settle this costly 
and damaging litigation as quickly as possible.
    There is no reason to drag this situation on any longer and 
destroy a good thing.
    JA



MTC-00025602

From: Virginia Yager
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I agree with the Microsoft settlement. Enough money has been 
spent on this law suit.
    Virginia Yager



MTC-00025603

From: Beatrice Sutton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's get this settled and move on. Consumer interests have been 
well served. It is time to end this costly and damaging litigation . 
Dragging out this legal battle further will benefit a few wealthy 
competitors, lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one new 
product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
    Beatrice Sutton; Webster, Florida
    [email protected]



MTC-00025604

From: Neil Schneider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html), namely: The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-
compatible competing operating systems
    Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry. The PFJ Contains Misleading and 
Overly Narrow Definitions and Provisions The PFJ supposedly makes 
Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but it defines ``API'' 
so narrowly that many important APIs are not covered. The PFJ 
supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware with 
competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might 
not be covered at all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product -- but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box--operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are 
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.
    Neil Schneider [email protected]
    http://www.paccomp.com
    Key fingerprint = 67F0 E493 FCC0 0A8C 769B 8209 32D7 1DB1 8460 
C47D
    .. Windows XP... ``most reliable Windows ever.'' To 
me, this is like saying that asparagus is ``the most articulate 
vegetable ever.''
    -- Dave Barry



MTC-00025605

From: Beatrice Sutton

[[Page 27659]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement offers a reasonable compromise that will 
enhance the ability of seniors and all Americans to access the 
internet and use innovative software products to make their computer 
experience easier and more enjoyable.
    Betty Lands
    [email protected]



MTC-00025606

From: John Goodnough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am completely opposed to the governments settlement in the 
civil antitrust case with Microsoft. Microsoft has been a predator 
in the technology sector for years and has grown fat by getting away 
with it. When this case was filed I thought there might actually be 
justice in the world. But know you're just going to let them 
continue to abuse the systems and safeguards we put in place in this 
country to prevent companies like Microsoft from gaining too much 
control.
    I can only encourage you in the strongest terms to reverse this 
decision and take Microsoft to task for the abuses of our capitalist 
system. We are not a strong country because of companies like 
Microsoft. On the contrary, we are strong because of the companies 
that Microsoft has gutted and destroyed over the years. I can only 
imagine where we would be if Microsoft had been prevented from 
stifling development by companies that dared to compete with them. 
We might not be struggling with a recession today if Microsoft had 
been stopped 10 years ago. Please take the necessary action now to 
prevent further damage to the system that build America in the first 
place. Punish Microsoft for their self serving actions.
    John Goodnough
    32 Hosmer Street
    Acton, MA 01720
    978-263-5457



MTC-00025607

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm in favor of excepting the present terms on the Microsoft 
& DoJ settlement & droping all this appealing. What a waste 
of funds & time. Lela Omta



MTC-00025608

From: Leon Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:44pm
Subject: Re: Public comments on the settlement between the DOJ and 
Microsoft
    I would like to add a comment for your consideration in the 
settlement of the Microsoft case. I can say it no better than 
Russell Pavlicek did in his column The Open Source from 
InfoWorld.com, Wednesday, January 23, 2002. Let me quote that and 
ask only that the settlement you configure with Microsoft not reward 
the company for it's actions that have been deemed in Federal Court 
as monopolistic.
    Personally, I like the counterproposal put forward by Red Hat: 
Let Microsoft donate money for computing resources for underfunded 
schools, but let those donations go toward hardware only; then 
populate those machines with open-source software.
    Why open source? Consider the future: What will the schools do 
when they need to upgrade? If you give schools Microsoft software, 
they will be caught in the endless upgrade cycle that has 
characterized life in the Microsoft world. Those upgrades will cost 
money, money that these targeted school districts, by definition, 
cannot spare.
    Instead, arming schools with open-source software will have two 
benefits. First, it will set schools down a long-term path that they 
can afford. The cost of obtaining open-source upgrades is trivial. 
Without low-cost software upgrades, all those nice shiny computers 
run the risk of becoming boat anchors in short order. I'm sure 
someone is saying, ``But open source is too difficult to 
administer!'' Such does not have to be the case, but I'll deal 
with that issue in a future column.
    Also, the Red Hat proposal does not reward Microsoft in the long 
term. If a company is convicted of overpowering markets, why would 
you reward them by putting one of the few markets they don't lead 
under their control? This sounds a lot like a seed-unit program for 
education, not the penalty imposed from losing a trial.
    Corporate misdeeds are supposed to earn punishment, not long-
term investment opportunities. I believe we would all be better off 
if the courts acknowledged the difference between the two. --
    leon moore USUHS/BID 4301 jones bridge road bethesda md 20814 
[email protected] 301-295-3669 (ph) 
301-295-3585 (fax)



MTC-00025609

From: Eric (038) Emmi Lappoehn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern. I, Eric B. Lappoehn, at 8916 Signal 
Terrace Dr. Las Vegas, NV. 89134 - e-mail: [email protected] 
sincerely and urgently request that you stop persecuting Microsoft. 
In all the litigation that has been going on for the last year or 
so, no one and I mean no one has asked the millions of computer 
users what they thought about this persecution of Microsoft. 
Microsoft's competitors are upset that Microsoft is giving away, for 
free, programs to millions of computer users that THEY want us to 
pay for. I am very happy to use all the programs Microsoft offers 
and I DO NOT need THEIR competition. If THEY produce a product that 
is superior to Microsoft's I will consider it. Up to this point in 
time I have not seen anything better offered by anyone else. 
Sincerely, Eric B. Lappoehn



MTC-00025610

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a registered voter in the state of Maryland and a computer 
professional with 18 years of experience, I would like to take 
advantage of the opportunity to comment on the proposed settlement 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. While I am not 
qualified to comment on the legal aspects of the case, I am quite 
qualified to comment on the technical aspects. However, it is from 
my perspective as a parent that I have taken a position on this 
issue.
    I volunteered my services in thePTA Technology committee of my 
daughter's elementary school for 3 years. During that time, the 
school was provided a computer lab which used Microsoft operating 
systems and networking software. In planning sessions with the 
county's IT representatives, we discussed how teachers would be able 
to use the lab for classwork. I asked how they planned to provide 
students with user IDs and private work space and discovered that 
this would not be possible because of the expense and support 
requirements. When I asked how the students were to maintain their 
work, I found that the other schools with labs provided floppy disks 
for each student.
    I was astounded. I cannot imagine teachers having time to insert 
and eject 20 to 30 floppy disks on a regular basis, and so I was 
sure that the computer lab's effectiveness would be reduced 
tremendously. In fact, when my daughter began using it, she told me 
that all she ever did in it was to play some semi-educational games.
    The Microsoft and Apple personal computer operating systems were 
originally designed to be used exclusively by individuals, and 
therefore do not have multi-user controls built into them. There 
have been additions to provide some features of a multi-user system, 
but these are minimal, and in many cases, ineffective. Other 
operating systems, in particular those based on UNIX, were designed 
from the beginning for multiple users.
    If it were not for the illegal monopolistic practices of 
Microsoft, school computer labs could be provided with systems that 
would support many users, each with their own private environment, 
which would be easily accessible by teachers. This would enable 
teachers to take advantage of the power of computers to assist in 
teaching, as opposed to the computer labs being so difficult to use 
that they become little more than a recreational break.
    I hope that the court will weigh heavily the evidence of 
negative consequences such as these, which have occurred mostly due 
to Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly. I support a judgement that 
will prevent Microsoft from continuing to use its monopoly in ways 
that have been determined by the appeals court to have been illegal.
    Thank you.
    James J. Sansing
    1465 Maryland Ave.
    Severn, MD 21144



MTC-00025611

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 27660]]

U.S. Justice Department
Washington, DC
    Please be advised that we support the present proposed 
settlement for Microsoft , and oppose further litigation. This case 
has gone on long enough in our opinion and has already probably cost 
millions in litigation fees. Let Free Enterprise now take over.Do 
competitors desire fiurther litigation ? Enough is enough!
    Carl R. and Lisa Scheuplein 468 Dempsey Drive
    Cocoa Beach, Fl 32931



MTC-00025613

From: Burrows Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has continued its abusive anti-competitive practices 
by incorporating into Windows/XP a streaming audio-visual display 
product. This streaming product is intended to compete with 
RealNetworks product which had been rapidly gaining marketshare 
before the advent of WindowsXP.
    Having been proved a monopolist (which abused its market 
position to force the Netscape Navigator web-browser out of the 
market by including its own Windows Explorer into the Windows 
operating system) which distorted the market in its packaging of 
Windows 98, Microsoft has yet to change its behavior--in spite 
of the court's findings. The solution suggested by the Department of 
Justice as a settlement provides for no change to this behavior, and 
provides no punishment for repetitions of past behavior. It requires 
no change to Windows/XP. It treats the retail cost of software 
distributed by Microsoft as if it were the real cost incurred by 
Microsoft in manufacture and distribution.
    The Court must set substantive and enforceable limits on 
Microsoft's behavior. The Court must order Microsoft to make whole 
its damage to Netscape and to Real Networks; and to cease its 
packaging abuses in Windows 98 and Windows/XP by unbundling its 
browser and streaming software as separate installable (or 
uninstallable) products, purchased separately.
    Ben Burrows
    406 Shoemaker Road
    Elkins Park, PA 19027



MTC-00025614

From: ednellz@ juno.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Justice Department
    I understand that you are in the final stages of the 
deliberation on whether to accept the settlement or to litigate it 
further. Why continue to spend money just because some of the 
companies were not able to keep up with the progress Microsoft was 
making. The settlement offers a reasonable compromise and I ask that 
you accept it and get on with other business.
    Thank you for the work that you have done.
    H. Edgar Roye



MTC-00025615

From: Stephen Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:50pm
Subject: Keep innovation alive
    Microsoft is feared by Fortune 500 CEOs. Businesses, many of 
which have been hurt by Microsoft, refuse to bring up a case against 
the Redmond giant for fear of reprisal. Software companies stay out 
of Microsoft's path because they know that if they sell a competing 
product, they will compete against a ``free'' version that 
comes bundled on Windows.
    The Dept. of Justice should have Microsoft sell a 
``stripped'' down version of it's operating system.



MTC-00025616

From: mljjj@flash. net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:49pm
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,
    Mike Herrington
    1340 Riverwood
    Algonquin, IL 60102-3813



MTC-00025617

From: wrflynt@ yahoo.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:52pm
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,
    Rob Flynt
    P.O.Box 1251
    Georgetown, TX 78627-1911



MTC-00025618

From: Jason Broccardo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am 25 years old. I am part of the first generation of adults 
who have been using a computer for most of their lives. From the age 
of ten, there has been a computer in my house. For the past 5 years, 
in the various jobs I have held, my work could not have been done 
without a computer. Based on my experience, it is conceivable that 
when my two year old daughter is my age, the idea of living or 
working without a computer would be unimaginable to her. Computers, 
for better or worse, are central to how we interact socially and how 
we conduct business. Taking this into consideration, I respectfully 
ask that the government and the courts please reject the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. Microsoft, having been found guilty of 
violating the law and being the largest manufacturer of computer 
operating systems and software in the world, should not be allowed 
to ``get off so easy''.
    The courts have found Microsoft guilty. The lower courts 
proposed punishments have been rejected by the Appeals court. 
Regardless, that does not mean that Microsoft should now have its 
way. Microsoft should not benefit in anyway from a settlement. If 
there is to be a settlement, then Microsoft should be held 
accountable for its actions and punished in such a way that it will 
not repeat past offenses. I'm afraid that the proposed settlement 
would encourage Microsoft to do just that.
    Please reject the proposed settlement.
    Thank you for your time.
    Jason Broccardo
    Westmont,IL
    [email protected] or [email protected]
    Jason Broccardo
    [email protected]
    http://www.splendidezine.com



MTC-00025619

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:57pm
Subject: (no subject)
    2-25-2002
    To The Office of the U. S. Attorney General; During this public 
comment period I wish to voice my opinion on the MICROSOFT suit.
    The conditions of the present and concluding decision on the 
Microsoft case are fair and reasonable, so the Government's review 
should end swiftly. The court should proceed forthwith to agree that 
the terms are in the public interest. Had the suit been reasonably 
and rapidly negotiated to begin with, the nation's economy would 
have been untold billions of dollars better off in 2000 and 2001. 
For the welfare of the U. S. we sorely need no further interference 
in private enterprise in this case.

[[Page 27661]]

    Sincerely yours,
    Richard N. Whittier
    3991 Briarcliff Rd. N.E.
    Atlanta, Georgia 30345-2647
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025620

From: Kyle Crawford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    By not providing some aid for independent software vendors 
engaged in making Windows-compatible operating systems, the Proposed 
Final Judgement is missing a key opportunity to encourage 
competition in the operating system market. The statement in 
sections III.D. and III.E that the information released is to be 
used ``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product'' is too restrictive. It does not 
promote competition.
    Also, the definitions of ``Middleware'' are too 
narrow. Middleware should include .NET, Office, Outlook and other 
Microsoft products. All Middleware APIs need to be documented and 
available to independent software vendors prior to release. There 
must be no confusion over which APIs are covered by patents.
    The discrimination against Open Source applications is 
unacceptable. Many of the competing applications are open source.



MTC-00025621

From: E. Glenn Brooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a thinly-veiled attempt to extend the 
Microsoft monopoly to the schools of the US and to pay about 5i on 
the dollar in settlement fees. I completely object to the current 
settlement.
    -Glenn



MTC-00025622

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    jack jack
    1218 El Rey Ave
    El Cajon, CA 92021



MTC-00025623

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    jack jack
    1218 El Rey Ave
    El Cajon, CA 92021



MTC-00025626

From: Randall Krause
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10'59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00025626--0001

P.O. Box 116
Port Gamble, WA 98364
January 23, 2002
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    I am writing to express my disapproval of three years of lengthy 
and costly litigation brought against Microsoft. The lawsuit was 
flawed form the start and represents the political self-interest of 
a few that have no concern for the American public.
    The terms of the settlement are flawed and biased. Microsoft 
should not be forced to grant computer makers broad new rights to 
configure Windows'' so that competitors can more easily promote 
their own products, nor should they have to disclose interfaces that 
are internal to their Windows'' products.
    While unjustified, I must support the settlement being 
implemented because our economy needs Microsoft back at business and 
not worrying about political disputes. Please make sure this 
settlement comes to a quick end and that no further litigation is 
taken against one of our nation's greatest assets.
    Sincerely,
    Randall Krause 

MTC-00025626--0002



MTC-00025627

From: Mark H. Bickford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse and associates,
    I would like to object to the Proposed Final Judgment in the 
case of United States vs. Microsoft, for the following reasons:
    1. The Settlement as proposed only protects the interests of the 
20 largest OEMs, and does nothing for small-business PC 
manufacturers who may wish to make alternative operating systems 
available to their customers, or provide a link to a local ISP;
    2. The Settlement only protects large OEMs who wish to install 
multiple operating systems on one machine alongside Windows; it does 
not say that Microsoft cannot retaliate against an OEM who wishes to 
sell a PC with only an alternative operating system installed. This 
would have the effect of continuing to force OEMs to install a copy 
of Windows with every PC they ship.
    3. Similar to item 1 above, the Settlement only protects OEMs 
who wish to install Middleware which already ships at least 1 
million copies / year. It does not protect those who wish to install 
programs which are too new to have that size an installed base, or 
which may compete with Microsoft products in their intended usage 
but do not meet the definition of ``Middleware'' because 
they do not currently expose APIs (for instance, a simple Email 
client). In closing, I feel that Microsoft has repeatedly abused 
their operating system monopoly by using it to create new monopolies 
(both the current ``Middleware'' issue and the current 
state of the office sute category come to mind), and that a judgment 
that is both more restrictive of Microsoft and more considerate of 
the needs of small business is called for.
    Best regards,
    Mark H. Bickford
    Portland, ME



MTC-00025628

From: Beryl N Northrup
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We desire that the Justice Department accept the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. This has gone on long enough and is 
jeopardizing the ability of seniors and all Americans to access the 
Internet and use innovative software products.
    Norman N. Northrup and Beryl F. Northrup



MTC-00025629

From: Patrick Insko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Insko Computer Consulting Group
7922 Burr Oak Road
Roscoe, IL 61073
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To whom it may concern:
    In researching the proposed final agreement in the case against 
Microsoft, I am

[[Page 27662]]

troubled by the lack of substance regarding the punishment of 
Microsoft for abusive and illegal monopoly conduct. I add my voice 
to those who have already gone to great lengths to illustrate 
concerns over the proposed final agreement. In addition to that, 
however, I would like to enumerate a few points, from the 
perspective of a Macintosh user, which I hope will serve to 
illustrate predatory behavior on the part of Microsoft and offer 
alternative remedies and penalties:
    1. Although Apple lost its copyright infringement lawsuit 
against Microsoft alleging that it had copied the Macintosh OS too 
closely in Windows, Microsoft has effectively isolated Apple from 
the marketplace since having obtained a monopoly with Windows. 
Microsoft has since entered into contracts with OEM's (original 
equipment manufacturers) that preclude them from shipping another 
manufacturer's operating system, which is a barrier to entry for 
Apple to pursue OEM's to which it could license its operating 
system. Any proposed final agreement should preclude Microsoft from 
contractually prohibiting OEM's from licensing, shipping, and/or 
supporting a competing operating system. Furthermore, the settlement 
should contain measures that would prevent Microsoft from 
retaliating against OEM's that choose to license, ship, and/or 
support a competing operating system.
    2. Microsoft further damages Apple's potential by withholding 
software, sometimes indefinitely, for the Macintosh. Considering the 
incredible pace at which the technology industry moves, customers 
cannot afford to wait many months for software to become available 
on the operating system of their choice. As such, customers are 
often forced to purchase personal computers running Windows in order 
to be technologically current. Consider that Microsoft's agreement 
with Apple in which Microsoft agreed to provide upgrades to Office 
for a period of five years expires this year. If Office were not 
available for the Macintosh platform, it is widely accepted that 
Apple would have no chance for survival. Were Microsoft to 
discontinue Office for Macintosh, it would effectively destroy 
Apple's viability, and as such would constitute a violation of its 
monopoly power. Any proposed final agreement should offer protection 
to competitors such as Apple by requiring Microsoft to continue 
support for critical applications like Office, in order to preclude 
those companies from going out of business. It should be recognized 
that a company that is run out of business as the result of another 
company abusing its monopoly power no longer has the means to pursue 
a remedy or recourse.
    3. Measures must be put in place that would prevent Microsoft 
from further abusing its monopoly power through its efforts to 
``embrace, extend, and extinguish.'' Microsoft has long 
made it a practice to embrace technologies and standards it regards 
as potentially lucrative. It then extends the technologies and 
standards to include proprietary, Microsoft-only additions. Since it 
has such a vast market share with its operating system, Microsoft is 
able to force the Microsoft-only technology or standard on millions 
of customers, which effectively makes the Microsoft version of the 
technology or standard the one that is overwhelmingly adopted. The 
inevitable result is that Microsoft's competitors, which in many 
cases were responsible for the new technologies and standards, are 
extinguished from the very market they had created. One such example 
of this abusive and predatory tactic can be found by examining 
Microsoft's attempts to redefine the standards of Sun Microsystem's 
Java programming language.
    4. Perhaps the most notorious and egregious violation of 
Microsoft's monopoly power was its decision to freely license 
Internet Explorer once it recognized that Netscape threatened to 
dominate the new Internet market. The end result, to date, has been 
to render Netscape unable to profit from its Internet browser in 
order to compete with Internet Explorer. Microsoft utilized its 
massive cash reserves to fund the development and free distribution 
of software in order to decimate a competitor. Any proposed final 
agreement must prevent Microsoft from using its massive cash 
reserves to wage a war of attrition against smaller, less 
advantaged, companies.
    5. The proposed settlement agreement penalizes Microsoft about 
one billion dollars, which is a fraction of the amount of cash 
reserves Microsoft maintains. This dollar amount, examined in the 
perspective of Microsoft's market capitalization, is roughly the 
equivalent to the amount of money it would lose if its share price 
were to drop approximately 0.1%. Any proposed settlement agreement 
must represent a realistic penalty to Microsoft's bottom line as a 
means to deter future abuses of its monopoly power. A more realistic 
penalty would be twenty billion dollars.
    I hope the Department of Justice takes its role seriously in 
providing adequate and meaningful penalties and remedies in this 
case. Microsoft has decimated competition in the software industry, 
and it is the highest imperative that competition be restored for 
the good of the consumer.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick Insko
    Principal
    Insko Computer Consulting Group



MTC-00025630

From: Ruth (038) Rusty Warner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settllement
    I think this gone on too long. This does nothing but make some 
lawyers rich. The public as a whole receives no benifits.
    CC:William Russell Warner



MTC-00025631

From: Robert P. Fickenwirth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To those responsible for litigation in this case. Enough 
already--please expedite the settlement of this case. More 
litigation is the last thing I, as a consumer, or the industry 
needs. Please settle so we all can move forward.



MTC-00025632

From: dh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:11pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I'm a self-employed IT professional working primarily with 
personal computers; I use, and support users of, various operating 
systems, including Macintosh and several flavors of Windows. 
Although I've not read all the documents relating to the current 
proposed settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft (Civil Action No. 
98-1232), I have been avidly following the case since it 
began. Based on my understanding of the industry, Microsoft's role 
in it, and the courts'' findings relative to same, I am 
flabbergasted and appalled at the terms of the proposed settlement.
    Microsoft enjoys a virtual monopoly over large segments of the 
market, and has engaged in illegal practices in furtherance of this 
position. Remedies, by definition, should seek to undo the damage 
inflicted by these practices. The proposed settlement doesn't simply 
fail in this regard; it will actually exacerbate the damage.
    It's long been understood that seeding schools with proprietary 
technology results in increased sales of that technology to those 
who've been exposed to it thereby. The reason for this is pretty 
obvious: people tend to buy those products with which they are 
familiar, and therefor comfortable. Education being one of the few 
PC markets that Microsoft doesn't currently dominate, any steps that 
increase the company's presence in that market will thus have a 
magnified effect.
    So, donating equipment and software to schools is simply good 
business practice from Microsoft's perspective. This is so even if 
the real cost of those donations to the company is high, which may 
or may not be true in this instance, and even if the value to the 
schools is also high--again, an open question. I am baffled as 
to how anyone could fail to see the granting by Microsoft of large 
quantities of its products to the public school system, as being 
anything other than a boon to the company.
    In short, I believe that any meaningful settlement to this case 
would simultaneously benefit the public, mitigate some of the 
competitive damage which has resulted from Microsoft's illegal 
behavior, and discourage the company from behaving in such a fashion 
in the future. The proposed settlement fails miserably to meet these 
criteria, and should be scrapped.
    Sincerely,
    David Hauer
    1818 10th Street
    Berkeley, CA 94710
    david hauer



MTC-00025633

From: snive
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Let's settle this case and move on. All the government's case 
has done so far, is to hurt the public, which it was suppose to 
protect. It would be nice if the government would

[[Page 27663]]

explain, just how all of us will be better off as a result of their 
case. Are they going to send us a check for dollars lost in stock 
value because of their actions?
    It appears that the Justice Department should have been focused 
on Enron, which has hurt the American public much more than 
Microsoft ever could. Maybe microsoft should have contributed more.
    Just do It.
    Sincerely,
    John M. Snively, Jr.



MTC-00025634

From: Loren Chang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a citizen of the United States and an avid computer user I 
feel the need to speak up regarding the settlement proposed by 
Microsoft Corporation for the antitrust lawsuit being filed against 
it.
    The settlement as proposed by Microsoft is nothing more then a 
sham and a brazen attack upon the law, the government, and the 
American people, and shows Microsoft's utter disregard and contempt 
of the law and the intelligence of the people of this nation. It is 
also evidence of the laxness and complacency among the highest 
levels of our government, and the willingness of some of these 
individuals to sell out all principle in exchange for personal gain. 
Microsoft has been nothing short of arrogant and uncooperative since 
the beginning of the antitrust case against it, as demonstrated by 
it's recent thinly veiled attempt at inundating the lucrative 
educational market with it's products, even after the guilty verdict 
was levied.
    I urge you to not let this challenge on the freedom, and the law 
by Microsoft go unpunished. Through it's recent actions, Microsoft 
has shown that it is a true threat to both innovation, and a fair 
and free marketplace. I urge you to levy the strictest penalties 
possible on Microsoft, so that it may never again be the threat to 
freedom and innovation that it has shown itself to be in the past, 
and indeed, to this very day. Nothing short of the freedom of our 
nation, and perhaps the world, rests upon this decision.
    Sincerely yours,
    Loren Chang



MTC-00025635

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs: I am thankful for the Microsoft Windows softward 
standard, enabling me to correspond without difficulty, use 
computers at other locations without difficulty and connect to my 
own computer from other locations. The wide use of Windows also 
means that it is much easier for programmers to come up with 
something new, not having to deal with multiple types of software.
    We all know the nightmare of dealing with multiple phone 
companies and their systems. I have never felt that I was 
overcharged for Microsoft products and feel that bundling has made 
using the computer easier and cheaper, down-loading only one program 
rather than several. I am aware of the contents of the settlement 
and feel it is fair. I believe that competition should take place in 
the marketplace rather than the courts.
    Edna Hauser



MTC-00025636

From: Marc (038) Jeanne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    Honor, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
    Please I urge you, your Honor, to review ``The Proposed 
Final Judgment'' with the DOJ and Microsoft. I have been in the 
IT business for many years and have seen countless times that 
Microsoft has been less then fair in their business practices, 
ethical competition, and consumer choice. The IT industry needs 
protection from Microsoft and Microsoft needs to cease their 
monopolistic practices.
    Thank You,
    Marc R. McCamey BST, Tech+
    Network Administrator
    Interstate Specialties Inc.
    1807 Pittsburgh Ave.
    Erie, PA 16507
    1.800.533.6847
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025637

From: Rudy Stefenel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: U.S. Department of Justice
From: Rudy Stefenel
3138 Drywood Lane
San Jose, CA 95132
408-263-5332
1/25/02
    It is essential that you incorporate the solution proposed by 
California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, 
Minnesota, Utah, West Virginia and the District of Columbia into the 
final Microsoft antitrust settlement. The current settlement has too 
many loop-holes. Here are are the three points proposed by these 
states along with the reasons to incorporate them.
    Require Microsoft to give computer makers more freedom to 
feature rival software on their machines. This is absolutely 
essential and obvious. Computer makers must have this freedom or 
Microsoft clearly has a monopoly.
    Order Microsoft to sell a cheaper, stripped-down version of its 
Windows operating system. This is a superb requirement because it 
gives freedom of choice to everyone who uses Windows without 
stopping Microsoft from innovating. Otherwise Microsoft is forcing 
everyone to pay for Microsoft's application software programs when 
purchasing Windows, even if some people prefer non-Microsoft 
applications software programs.
    Order Microsoft to do more to reveal the workings of Windows to 
competitors. This is absolutely essential. At present, Microsoft's 
application software programs can run better than their competitors 
software because Microsoft is not not telling their competitors 
about all the ways to hitch their software up to Windows.
    As an example, part of Microsoft's defense is that their Web 
Browser, Internet Explorer, is merged with Windows and it cannot be 
separated out. Actually only part of Internet Explorer is integral 
with Windows and Windows would function fine with other parts 
removed.
    Microsoft must disclose how to utilize the parts that could not 
be removed to competitors so that their Web Browsers can use them 
too or the competitor's web browsers don't have a chance of working 
as well as Microsoft's.
    How does this make Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser 
work better? Think about how long it takes to load a web browser. A 
competitor's web browsers can't possibly load as fast as Microsoft's 
because the whole browser must be loaded. Only part of Microsoft's 
browser needs to be loaded because the other part is integral to 
Windows. People get irritated if they have to wait too long for a 
browser to load and will end up using Microsoft't browser, even if 
the prefer other browsers for other reasons. Can't you see how 
Microsoft is using their Windows operating system, in this case, to 
leverage unfair competition?
    These three requirements, proposed by a few states, are not 
vindictive and they address Microsoft's antitrust violations head 
on. They don't stop Microsoft from selling a version of Windows with 
integral applications software. People who prefer other applications 
software are not stuck with paying for Microsoft's. Microsoft has 
full freedom on innovate and so does their competitors. Computer 
makers have freedom of choice and so does every everyone who uses 
Windows.
    Sincerely,
    Rudy Stefenel



MTC-00025638

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Department of Justice,
    Let us move on with what would help our country and economy the 
most.
    Let us PLEASE move forward. Half the states have agreed with the 
decision. The Microsoft case has no justifiable reason to continue. 
The truth is that most consumers appreciate how MICROSOFT HAS MADE 
COMPUTERS REALLY USER FRIENDLY.
    I am also a very typical American public who agrees with most 
Americans to ``MOVE ON!''
    Thank You
    For Taking The Time
    To Read This,
    Tamara Fine



MTC-00025639

From: dube
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:28pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    People are sick about AOL .It not the first time that AOL suit 
some companies .Every time they want to block the expansion to some 
companies just because them bought the small companies for almost 
nothing and after that, need some time to get a chance to

[[Page 27664]]

come first with their technology. They do not have any interest for 
the customers.
    The only thing is important for them to be number ONE. No matter 
what painful for the old and young peoples who did not have chance 
to learn the computer at school to use it.I thank you very much 
micrsoft for what they do for the world; our life change ,I learn to 
use the computer by myself 15 years ago.It was hard to use all 
commands and I spent very much time to catch up everything to 
understand how this will work and be able to fellow the conversation 
with my children and the employes. The window come and it was the 
happy time for all to use the computer faster and more efficienty. I 
use both ten years ago NESCAPE and msn explorer .Always I come back 
with msn explorer because it was easier.
    sincerely [email protected]



MTC-00025640

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    emmett Gloyna
    5947 County Road 284
    Edna, TX 77957



MTC-00025641

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
    emmett Gloyna
    5947 County Road 284
    Edna, TX 77957



MTC-00025642

From: John S. Howell, Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attn: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 25, 2002
RE: MICROSOFT ANTITRUST CASE--PUBLIC COMMENT for the DISTRIC 
COURT TO CONSIDER
    I am an avid computer hobbyist and software entrepreneur that 
started in the 1970's, years before Microsoft's name was well known. 
I have carefully watched, and dealt with Microsoft since they were a 
tiny company, and I believe this gives me a somewhat unique 
perspective on Microsoft and their competitors.
    The products I have licensed from Microsoft include programming 
languages like BASIC, Visual Basic, and ``C'', operating 
systems like MS-DOS and Windows, and productivity tools like Word, 
Excel, Outlook e-mail and PowerPoint. I have also licensed software 
products from Novell, Apple, IBM and others.
    More than all of the others combined, the Microsoft products 
have benefited my business and my personal life in many, many 
positive ways. From the very first purchase I have found Microsoft 
products to be of unusually high quality, often innovative, 
extremely useful, and perhaps above all, a tremendous value for the 
money. The company is usually very easy and straightforward to deal 
with.
    My company started with IBM, Novell and Microsoft as suppliers. 
Although we initially favored IBM and Novell products, over the 
years, we valued Microsoft's more than the others--I believe 
mainly because Microsoft seemed to understand the technologies and 
tradeoffs better than their competitors, and were able to 
consistently produce superior products at a very low price, which 
made them a lower risk, and a better supplier to us.
    One of my concerns with this case is that the complaint against 
Microsoft originated not with individual consumers, or with 
Microsoft's partners, but with Microsoft's unsuccessful competitors. 
These failed businesses must not be allowed to set the rules for the 
markets in which they failed.
    I purchased Microsoft products for my business over their 
competitors because they were able to consistently provide the best 
balance features, ease of use, and performance, AND make their 
products available at extremely attractive prices. Over the years, I 
have witnessed many hundreds of other business people make their own 
independent evaluations that resulted in the same conclusion-- 
Microsoft's products were overall better than the 
competitions--and so they purchased them.
    I resent any characterization by the government that Microsoft's 
customers are ``helpless victims'' who cannot choose 
software. Nothing could be further from the truth. More than almost 
any other type of product I have found that buyers of computer 
products seek the advice and comment of others before making a 
purchase.
    I also do not believe the government should have any say in what 
software I should run on my computer, and I resent the idea that a 
successful business and a successful product should be a threat to 
anyone.
    I believe it is a dangerous policy for politicians to protect 
some businesses from others. Continued application of the antitrust 
laws against successful businessmen can only lead to corruption and 
economic disaster.
    And lastly, I believe Microsoft should have the right to its own 
property, and that it is the government's job is to protect this 
right, not to take it away.
    Sincerely,
    John S. Howell, Jr
    Naples, FL



MTC-00025643

From: Dino Rachiele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am outraged by the attack against Microsoft. Microsoft is 
constantly being punished for being the first and the best at what 
they do. This is discouraging to many of us who have hopes of 
attaining the American Dream. Leave those folks alone... please. I 
have stock in AOL and Microsoft. I am ashamed that AOL has taken 
this stance. They have better things to do!
    Thank you,
    Dino Rachiele
    President,
    Luxury Home Products, Inc.
    The Rachiele Group, Inc., Custom Sinks by Rachiele
    Oxitech, Inc.
    www.luxuryhomeproducts.com
    www.rachiele.com
    www.oxitech.org



MTC-00025644

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:25pm
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 27665]]

    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of 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 Merrick
    1605 Baker Dr.
    Kalamazoo , MI 49048-1215



MTC-00025645

From: Jeff Donner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I think the MS settlement should include prohibiting them from 
putting restrictions on where you can run MS application software. 
Right now they are beginning to put clauses into their End User 
License Agreements forcing you to agree to use it only on MS 
operating systems; this is very anti-competitive, as it is otherwise 
slowly becoming possible to run MS apps on other OSes, like Linux 
(using Wine). The only point of such restrictions is to suppress 
competition with MS'' operating systems, the Windows. It does 
not protect MS intellectual property in any way; users still have 
bought the MS software, after all.
    Thanks,
    Jeff



MTC-00025646

From: J.C. Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
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.
    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.
    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 
(``JIM''); 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 ``burn'' CDs 
into its newest operating system, Windows XP); Adobe Photoshop, et 
al. (Microsoft

[[Page 27666]]

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).



MTC-00025646-0003

    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/



MTC-00025646-0004

    In fact, an application was developed to remove IE from Windows 
98 called ``981ire'': http://www.981ite.net/
    I am not ignorant of the fact that this would eliminate some of 
the features offered by the 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

[[Page 27667]]

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.



MTC-00025646--0006

    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 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 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 applications 
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-00025647

From: Joe Marasco
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/25/02 11:32pm
Subject: RE: Comment on Microsoft-DOJ settlement
    I do not agree with you.
    Thanks.
    Joe
    Original Message
From: William Buchanan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 9:26 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: abraham, fred; Jacobsen, Dianne; Lips, Rolf; Marasco, Joe
Subject: Comment on Microsoft-DOJ settlement
    I am outraged at the proposed ``settlement'' of this 
conflict. It makes as much sense to me as the first court conclusion 
in the OJ Simpson case. Gates has simply conned his way out of being 
found clearly guilty by the very expensive but well executed 
investigation of Microsoft's actions by the Clinton DOJ. 
Gates'' entire career is based on lying, cheating, stealing and 
bullying his way around in the consumer community. He has no 
scruples, other than continually doing anything he can to get the 
public's money in exchange for their purchases of Microsoft's so-
called ``innovative'' products. These sub par products 
only appear to be innovative because he has used his wealth and 
maligned cunning to squash any legitimate competitors. Jackson's 
characterization of him as a ``little Napoleon'' is right 
on. And now for the corrupt tie between G.W. Bush and W. Gates 
(following White House meetings between the two) to surface as a 
``just settlement'' thrown quickly before a war-distracted 
US public and its Congress, is really rubbing salt into a big wound.
    Hooray for the valor of the states who are holding out and 
continuing to gun for a real ``just settlement'', in this 
case. The only reason the other states that originally were involved 
had to drop out is that the Gates machine is so well endowed, 
financially and legally, it is able to intimidate even a

[[Page 27668]]

relatively large collective of public/legal representatives in its 
obsessive path of destruction. I'm glad to be a citizen of 
California, and able to watch my attorney general, Bill Locklyer, 
lead the charge against prematurely settling with Microsoft. I would 
hope that the Federal DOJ could follow the same path in this case, 
but think that the eagerness of the current administration to 
satisfy Gates'' dreams of walking away unscathed from this 
situation are so far handing him his wishes, just as though it was a 
``pardon''.
    If there is still such a value as ``justice'' in our 
US, then let it reign supreme. Require Microsoft to be held 
accountable for what it has already been found guilty of, and make 
it pay the full and responsible cost of having deliberately 
committed its heinous actions. And see to it that the Bush 
administration be held just as responsible and accountable for 
exercising its Constitutional requirement to uphold justice in this 
case. Anything less only brings to light that the Bush 
administration and Microsoft are colluding to dupe the taxpayer into 
believing that both are worthy of honor, a conclusion that is just 
not acceptable and well should not be.
    CC:abraham fred,Jacobsen Dianne,Lips Rolf



MTC-00025648

From: Bob E
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    NOT FAR ENOUGH



MTC-00025649

From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov.
Date: 1/25/02 11:34pm
Subject: Settlement With Microsoft
    Let's move forward and complete the more than fair settlement 
reached among DOJ, Microsoft and the nine states. To do otherwise is 
very unsettling to the economy and delays Microsoft's continuing 
record of helping improve the productivity of companies thoughout 
the United States of America.
    Thank you,
    William & Stephanie Necoechea
    6509 Caminito Catalan
    La Jolla, CA 92037



MTC-00025650

From: Alex Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case is 
inadequate. There are many problems with the settlement, far more 
than I can go into. Therefore, I will mention only a few of the 
inadequacies.
    1. Microsoft must allow all third party programmers free access 
to all APIs and communications protocols used to interoperate with 
Windows or any other Microsoft products. Section III.J.2b allows 
Microsoft to release APIs only to a third party that ``has a 
reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or 
Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product.'' 
This access cannot be limited to commercial programmers. 
Specifically, programmers who do not seek to make a profit or who 
are working on open source projects must have the same access to 
APIs and communications protocol documentation that commercial, for-
profit programmers have.
    2. Section III.J.1a is a glaring weakness to the stipulation 
that Microsoft reveal its APIs. Microsoft has repeatedly hidden 
behind claims that it cannot reveal key elements of its software for 
``security reasons.'' This is often called ``security 
through obscurity'', and its merit is highly questionable on 
security grounds; many security experts agree that the only way a 
security measure can be considered adequate is by allowing the 
security measure to pass rigorous inspection by security experts. 
Any good security measure should be strong enough so that even a 
person who has access to the entire source code of the security 
protocol cannot break the security.
    I do not propose that Microsoft be forced to open its source 
code for review by outside security experts; such a provision would 
unfairly limit Microsoft's ability to compete. However, security is 
not an acceptable reason for Microsoft to refuse to document APIs or 
communications protocols that, by the Final Judgment, they would 
otherwise be required to disclose.
    3. In productivity software, the most important factor for a 
potential competitor to Microsoft is the ability to read and write 
files that are fully compatible with Word and Excel files. The Final 
Judgment does not adequately require Microsoft to fully document 
their file formats, so any consumer who does not use Microsoft 
Office will continue to be at a disadvantage whenever he needs to 
share a file with an Office using person. Current Microsoft file 
formats can be read by competing office suites such as Sun's 
StarOffice or Apple's AppleWorks as long as the files are quite 
simple. However, any Microsoft Office file that contains more 
complicated elements such as tables does not display well in other 
office suites. Therefore, the Final Judgment must be amended to 
force
    Microsoft to fully document its file formats, without including 
any features in the file format that only Microsoft products can 
effectively use.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely yours,
    Alex Hill
    email: [email protected]
    OCMR 1201
    Oberlin College
    Oberlin, OH 44074



MTC-00025651

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:34pm
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,
    Vicki Faas
    7021 E Townsend Dr
    Highlands Ranch, CO 80126



MTC-00025652

From: Lisa Downing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a pathetic slap on the 
wrist, which will do nothing to restrain a company that has proven 
again and again that it will do anything to dominate the market, 
including threatening to strangle its competitors (e.g. Apple, 
Netscape).



MTC-00025653

From: lorraine snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:39pm
Subject: Mic
    Please end the case against Microsoft, now! Microsoft is the 
gage to the economy in this country! As a country, we cannot afford 
to have Microsoft attacked! When Microsoft is attacked, the 
consumers back off from investing! If you want the economy to go 
under, just keep Microsoft being attacked by yourselves and 
MONOPOLY'S like AOL WARNER!!! Their Netscape HAS THE MARKET, and 
they have NEVER BEEN HURT BY THE LITTLE SHARE OF the internet market 
Microsoft has!
    I WANT AOL TAKEN TO TASK FOR BEING AN AGGRESSIVE MONOPOLY!!!! 
The whole country loves and respects Microsoft except a few of their 
competitors! All companies have competitors so WHY should this 
company be discriminated against and allowed to be attacked by their 
competitors as well as their own country who happily take the tax 
generated from their products!
    Sincerely,
    Lorraine M. Snyder
    15018 SE Fairwood Blvd.
    Renton, Wa 98058



MTC-00025654

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept this settlement. The charges levied against 
Microsoft are brought on behalf of competitors and not consumers. 
Microsoft is a stabilizing force that allows me to know which 
programs will work with my computer and allows less technical people 
to have a ``breed'' of software that they are familiar 
with. Without that, the industry is likely to fragment and become 
less secure, predictable, and valueble to businesses and consumers. 
Microsoft has already attempted

[[Page 27669]]

to rectify many of the behaviors that have been at issue in the case 
and this settlement will ensure that they continue to do so. The 
states that are agains the settlement have no real stake in this 
case. They're simply attourneys general trying to make a political 
name for themselves. The DOJ knows that its time to put this issue 
to bed, as do half the states. Given the economic and social 
conditions today, it's in everyone's best interest to move on to 
more pressing issues.



MTC-00025655

From: Steve Pissocra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the current settlement proposition extremely weak and 
would like to see harsher penalties levied on Microsoft for the 
crimes they were found guilty of committing.
    Thank you,
    Steve Pissocra



MTC-00025656

From: Frank Echanique
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement the proposed settlement is bad idea if 
they win this Microsoft will only continue to rape the computer 
community for every penny it can get



MTC-00025657

From: Edward J. Dalton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is well past time to close the case on Microsoft and 
allow the settlement to remain as it is. The nine states that are 
holding out should be required to accept the DOJ's settlement or 
receive nothing. It's idiotic to claim that Microsoft charged too 
much for their software and that consumers are entitled to a refund. 
I have found Microsoft software to be an excellent product at a 
reasonable price. How would the states refund any money to the 
consumers after the state and the weasel lawyers take their share 
off the top: Pennies, perhaps. They're wasting the government's time 
and money and they should be stopped. As far as the AOL suit goes, 
they are far worse then any other computer related company when it 
comes to shady dealings and overcharging customers. In additon, the 
program disks they mail to potential customers are the worse form of 
junk mail and are a nuisance. That suit should be thrown out.
    Edward J. Dalton



MTC-00025658

From: Don D Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:46pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I strongly believe that the settlement agreed to between the DOJ 
and Microsoft was very fair to we the American people. I urge you to 
not waver from that settlement.
    Don Thompson
    POBox 5358
    Kent, WA 98064



MTC-00025659

From: Jason Pierce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea, 
and lets Microsoft off with nothing but a wrist slap.
    Jason Pierce
    www.musmis.com



MTC-00025660

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:47pm
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,
    Tommy Worrell
    18725 Bandera Rd.
    Helotes, TX 78023-2801



MTC-00025661

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly oppose the DOJ recommended settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. Microsoft has been adjudicated as an 
illegal ``Monopoly in restraint of trade'' and the Court's 
remedy should address that illegal Monopoly by adopting the 
proposals of the ``9 States'' who have courageously 
refused to join the DOJ's settlement proposal.
    David White
    computer user



MTC-00025662

From: Len Frazier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is poorly considered. MS, 
while in some ways has advanced computing in general, has taken its 
success and used it to stifle competition and innovation.
    I believe that the MS settlement requires much more from both MS 
and continuing, serious, regulation of the company's behavior. Len 
Frazier



MTC-00025663

From: Gary Liebe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having read through the ``Microsoft Settlement'' I 
think that this proposal is a BAD idea , in my job I have the 
Displeasure of Working on a Windoze Machine running proprietary 
software. The proprietary software works great and is well written 
nd intuitive, upon switching back to the Microsoft partition it 
invariably hangs and / or Freezes. Where I work they have been 
Dealing with this problem for 10 years. I feel it is only fair to 
tell you I Am an Ardent APPLE user and from the perspective of 
standing on the outside looking on as Microshaft slips it to the 
working public in a most unsatiable condition . Allowing the 
``Microsoft Settlement'' to be implemented would be GRAVE 
ERROR in my Humble opinion.
    [email protected]



MTC-00025664

From: Walt Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    Hello
    Dof J This case has gone on way to long,lets conclude it,every 
thing I have read about thee settlement sounds fair.
    Lets move on ,if the other soft companies would focus on 
development we all win.



MTC-00025665

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:51pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to have my voice heard during the 60-day public 
comment, granted to the settlement of US vs. Microsoft and the 
ongoing lawsuit.
    Microsoft has done nothing but prove that the American dream is 
alive a well, make a better product and the people will buy it. They 
have supplied our country with affordable and easy to use software. 
I for one had never had or used a computer, before March of 2000. I 
purchased a new Gateway w/ windows 98 2nd edition, and I was up and 
running in just one day. No classes, just learned from what was 
supplied to me. I AS A CONSUMER WAS NOT HARMED IN ANY WAY!!
    Microsoft has contributed greatly to our national gross product, 
and kept American software standards in constant motion. They have 
provided thousands of American with jobs. Not to mention the great 
generosity of the Gates Foundation.
    I believe that the lawsuit should be dismissed, if that is not 
possible, then the closure is absolutely necessary in order to 
continue the prosperity of our country and implore Senators and 
local legislators to stand up for the American people and the 
American principle. Let Microsoft keep doing what they do best, 
especially considering they've already accepted the proposed 
settlement forced on them. Keep the Federal Court from having to 
deal with this nonsense issue any longer.

[[Page 27670]]

    Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and I hope you, 
along with other government heads are really considering the 
American consumer. WE HAVE NOT BEEN HARMED.
    Sincerely,
    Ed Biever
    Sandwich, IL.
    CC:[email protected]. gov@inetgw,dick@ 
durbin.senate.g...



MTC-00025666

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00025666--0001

114 Greenwood Drive
Hagerstown, MD 21740
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to voice my support of the settlement reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. This case has been 
going on for years and I don't see how this issue really represents 
the consumer interest. Microsoft has hurt no one and it certainly 
isn't their fault that their competitors aren't as intelligent and 
innovative. There is already far too much politics in our business 
and this lawsuit certainly does not provide a good example for 
future behavior. Money-hungry politicians gave into the complaints 
of Microsoft's competitors and now taxpayers are footing the bill 
for a lawsuit that is in no way benefiting them. This settlement, 
although unfair to Microsoft, fairly addresses the issues of the 
lawsuit and will indeed restore competition to the computer 
industry. Microsoft has agreed to share more information with their 
competitors regarding technology. They will also be making it easier 
for consumers to configure Windows to access non-Microsoft products. 
If this does not satisfy Microsoft's competitors, then they are only 
looking for a break-up and are obviously not willing to compromise. 
I hope that you make the right decision and accept this settlement 
to prevent any further tax money being used for selfish and 
pointless lawsuits. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Hugh Everline



MTC-00025667

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:53pm
Subject: Micro Soft Law suite
    I feel that any more wasted time investigating Micro Soft will 
not benefit the General Population, The only ones that will benefit 
will be a few High Paid Lawyers and Micro Soft Competitors. STOPP 
THIS NONSENSE NOW!!!
    Sincerely T.W. Axtell



MTC-00025668

From: Richard & Sondra Andersen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/25/02 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard & Sondra Andersen
221 Mary Place
Muscatine, IA 52761-5503
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall 
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more 
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share 
my views.
    Sincerely,
    Richard & Sondra Andersen



MTC-00025669

From: Erik Friedlander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft in insufficient, and 
currently a bad idea. It needs to be more restrictive on Microsoft 
for it to be effective
    Erik Friedlander
    [email protected]
    Admit Nothing.
    Deny Everything.
    Make Counter-Accusations.



MTC-00025670

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:52pm
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,
    Thaddeus Wronkiewicz
    143 Dolores Drive
    Bensenville, IL 60106-3419



MTC-00025671

From: Steve Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to state my opinion that I think the proposed 
Microsoft settlement would be completely ineffective with regards to 
curbing anti-competitive behavior from Microsoft.
    I have read Dan Kegel's letter at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html and I agree with the statements made in this document.
    Please consider this email a vote against the proposed 
settlement.
    Thank you.
    Steve Fox
    4215 2nd St NW
    Rochester MN 55901



MTC-00025672

From: George Haeh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software developer for the past three decades, I have been 
following developments in this case with considerable professional 
interest. Well before the advent of Windows, I was deeply versed in 
IBM mainframe operating system technology and able when necessary as 
a customer to examine source code in IBM operating systems and 
program products to diagnose programs or produce modifications.
    Microsoft however has a different way of doing business that has 
been thoroughly documented in depositions and direct evidence.
    As proposed, the settlement between Microsoft and the Federal 
Department of Justice will effectively legalise Bill Gates as the 
Don Corleone of desktop software. No software firm with any 
aspiration to profitability will dare compete with any application 
MS chooses to bundle with its operating system.
    Worse still is the prospect that once a new desktop application 
gains a significant market, the proposed settlement does absolutely 
nothing to prevent Microsoft with its billions from deciding to 
write a competing application and bundle it with the operating 
system, just as they have done to Netscape and Real Networks. If the 
original developer of the new application is lucky, it will get an 
offer it can't refuse from Microsoft.
    The ultimate economic result will be that Microsoft will become 
the sole source of new desktop applications. This proposed 
settlement utterly smothers competition in desktop applications.
    Yes--Microsoft sells operating systems (and office 
software) that just about

[[Page 27671]]

everybody is forced to use to communicate with others--but why 
does that monopoly entitle Microsoft to create all sorts of new 
application monopolies in browsers, instant messaging, media players 
ad infinitum simply by including new applications with its operating 
systems for ``free''?
    For consumer convenience, I could find it perfectly acceptable 
that Microsoft could include an application bundle with their 
operating system that would be separately priced, just like their 
Plus! pack.
    To prevent propagation of new monopolies, Microsoft should be 
required to charge a non-predatory price for each separate 
application (each application could be unlocked through an internet-
accessible registration procedure or with license keys separately 
available at time of purchase). Other software vendors would then be 
able to compete with their own application bundles made available 
the same way on a considerably more level playing field. And just as 
important, every MS-supplied application including MS Office would 
be built to published operating system interfaces as verified by a 
master appointed by the court. These interfaces should be made 
available to outside software developers at the same time they are 
made available to internal Microsoft application developers (with 
the proviso that pre-release interfaces are subject to change which 
will be published externally at the same time as internal 
publication).
    Given Microsoft's key position in the software marketplace, file 
formats used by its applications and operating systems need to have 
the same status as programming interfaces to enable the marketplace 
to compete with equivalent and enhanced products. Do that and you 
will have real competition and something to show for all the 
litigation. The previous comments were written before the remedy 
proposal from the Plaintiff Litigating States was filed. Having read 
this proposal, I am struck by its simple common sense.
    The Plaintiff Litigating States'' proposal is the sensible 
and straightforward set of remedies that directly addresses the 
findings upheld unanimously by the Appeals Court and puts 
competitors on a level playing field that should have come from the 
DOJ if the Federal Attorney-general was faithfully doing his duty as 
counsel to his client's best interests, the American public.
    George Haeh
    643 Logan Ave.
    Toronto, ON
    M4K 3C4
    416-465-2292
    [email protected]
    CC:Nini Redway



MTC-00025673

From: Dave Karnecki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Enough already! A settlement has been reached, Microsoft has 
been slapped ``in the manner that is appropriate''.
    What Sun, Netscape, Oracle, AOL, et al need to do is produce a 
superior product and THEN and ONLY THEN will they gain the increased 
market share they desire. The courts ARE NOT the place for 
determining what's best for the consumer and business, the 
marketplace is. Let's stop the drag and keep those people working! 
All a prolonged court battle will produce are increased layoffs and 
job losses.
    Respectfully,
    Dave Karnecki
    Gainesville, Virginia
    [email protected]



MTC-00025674

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let me begin by saying that I completely support the settlement 
and want this entire case brough to completion. Below are some 
thoughts that came to mind while reading the case against Microsoft.
    First of all, the whole browser issue is a complete waste of 
time for every party involved, and it makes me sick to my stomach to 
think of how much money my government has wasted chasing this 
irrelevant case. As a technology consultant who has vast experience 
in many software platforms, the issue of the browser is ridiculous 
because any programmer worth their weight in beans could easily 
program their own browser to any operating system. Netscape had a 
commanding lead in browser share, which was wasted away by their own 
business policies and made even worse when Sun acquired Netscape. I 
used to have a lot of respect for Sun when I was consulting on their 
platform, but then I saw how their pricing and arrogance stifled 
innovation in the functionality and integration capabilities of the 
Netscape browser.
    This was also true with Java. It was great when it first came 
out, as the promise of the technology was the sweetest thing to hit 
the industry in a long time. By keeping such a tight hold on java, 
Sun has not only missed opportunity to advance the language, but 
they have kept many companies from innovating the language to 
provide a feature set that meets the needs of enterprise customers. 
When Microsoft added to java, they were only meeting the needs of 
their customers by filling the void in functionality that Sun 
refused to provide. Other companies have done the same, IBM, BEA, 
and others to the point that it takes a ``port'' of the 
code from one operating system to the next. This is completely 
opposite of what the early promise of java was ``write once, 
run anywhere''. To meet the needs of my business customers, we 
always have to find a vendor specific java such as IBM so that we 
can get the features out of the language that make it usable. If the 
language was submitted as a standard, these enhancement s would have 
been made to the language. Instead, Sun has kept the royaltees on 
all java licensing and has caused the rest of the industry to 
innovate around their stubbornness. Needless to say, I can better 
meet the needs of my customers by using another vendors 
``flavor'' of java versus the straight Sun implementation.
    The thing that bothers me the most about this case is that most 
of the ``facts'' (using the term loosely since I 
completely disagree with the previous findings of ``fact'' 
by the biased judge Jackson) brought to the government's legal team 
have come from Microsoft competitors, the ones who have the most to 
gain by hurting Microsoft. I have explained my thoughts on Sun, java 
and Netscape, and they are just a sampling of why this case should 
have never made it to the courts in the first place. To blanket this 
whole case and say that Microsoft is not allowing the industry to 
innovate is completely ridiculous. Microsoft should be punished for 
specific actions that have violated the law, and only for those 
specific actions. Given the amount of venture capital money that was 
fed into the economy over the last 10 years, there was plenty of 
opportunity for any company to come to market with new and 
compelling products. In regards to the settlement, it appears that 
both sides have made significant concessions to see this to an end. 
Ever since the DOJ brought this case against Microsoft, the economy 
has been in a tailspin. It appears that as long as this case is 
active in the courts, the chains of ``waiting to see what 
happens to Microsoft'' will remain, and the economy will remain 
stale. This tailspin has rippled into other industries and if we are 
ever to start recovering from this recession, this case needs to be 
completely settled and resolved.
    Please bring this case to an end and let our industry regulate 
itself. If people are seeing unethical or extremely competitive 
behavior, they can make their own decisions on who to support with 
their IT dollars. If companies are explicitly breaking the law, 
punish them for those specific acts and do not bring the rest of the 
industry down (and in this case, the whole economy) with them.
    Thank you,
    Michael Beatty
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025675

From: Myles MacVane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:58pm
Subject: Microsft Monopoly
    Dear Sirs:
    If owning the rights to copies of an operating system used by 
98% of the computers in the country does not, prima facie, 
constitute a monopoly, I don't know what does. Imagine that 
Microsoft owned the rights to the internal combustion engine. Much 
as with their Windows operating system, they could control most of 
the peripherals: radios, CD players, tape players, and GPS systems, 
for example, that General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, Honda, etc. could 
put into their vehicles. A better analogy might be...suppose 
Microsoft, owning the rights to the internal combustion engine, 
decide to engineer their engine so that only the gasoline refined by 
their own oil company worked well in that engine. What would happen 
to the other oil companies? They'd be kaput! That's just about what 
Microsoft is doing. Microsoft is basically anti-competitive, and it 
is the public who suffers.
    Myles MacVane
    13 Lyons Plain Rd.
    Weston, CT 06881-0816
    [email protected]

[[Page 27672]]



MTC-00025676

From: Rich Wendling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Finally! I wanted to let it be known that it's a good thing you 
are finally settling this case. The DOJ has more important things to 
do than to pursue this matter. Thank you.



MTC-00025677

From: Gerard Jeronowitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am ashamed that the U.S. Government is actually considering 
this settlement with Microsoft. The settlement as proposed will not 
accomplish the goal of alleviating Microsoft's strangle hold on the 
computer retailers and industry at large. Remedy by agreement has 
not worked with Microsoft in the past, and no-one has gone back to 
actually follow up with, or enforce previous settlements with the 
company allowing those agreements to be ignored at will.
    Microsoft is a predatory monopoly that stifles any real 
competition by either purchasing the competition, or eliminating a 
market by providing a free product and bundling it with their 
operating system, then forcing retailers to install that software as 
a default. Microsoft has repeatedly attempted to stall any legal 
proceedings by any means necessary, attempted to mis-lead the courts 
with falsified or manufactured testimony, and shows nothing but 
contempt for the process of law.
    I do hope that the court will see through this travesty of a 
settlement and provide substantive, meaningful, and long term 
remedy. My suggestion is to break the company in to four smaller 
entities: Internet (MSN, Explorer, IIS), Media and Entertainment 
(games, XBox, Windows Media Player), Applications and Operating 
systems (MS Office, Windows) and lastly, Hardware (keyboards, mice, 
PocketPC). This mix, though likely seen as drastic by many, would 
minimize the ability of one company to gain advantage from the work 
of another and provide for an environment of open, honest 
competition in the spirit of Capitalism and the open market system.
    Action such as this is necessary if TRUE innovation and 
competition is to continue in the future. Thank you for your time.
    Gerard Jeronowitz
    3041 N Sawyer
    Mesa, AZ 85201



MTC-00025678

From: Luke Lin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft Settlement is a horrible plan. It allows 
Microsoft to overtake the only area they currently do not 
dominate--education.
    Luke Lin



MTC-00025679

From: Donald Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:03am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I feel very strongly that Microsoft has been unjustly accused 
and persecuted in the matter of their alleged monoply of computer 
operating and applications systems. I think it is time to put a halt 
to this action and proceed with what seems to me to be a very fair 
settlement.
    I don't believe that tough competition should be discouraged in 
order to protect others from their inability to compete. I believe 
to do so deprives everyone from using the fruits of that 
competition. If Microsoft is the one that survives, then so be it. I 
agree that they should not use predatory and unfair means to achieve 
their position but as I followed the court actions, it seemed to me 
that it was not proved that they followed illegal practices.
    I strongly urge you to accept the proposed settlement forwith.
    Donald Fox
    105 Via Eldorado
    Warner Robins, GA 31088



MTC-00025680

From: Avi Rappoport
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:04am
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 object to the proposed Microsoft Settlement, the Proposed 
Final Judgement. I have been personally injured by Microsoft's 
monopoly practices, both when I worked for a Macintosh OS software 
developer, and when I worked for a web server developer. In the 
latter case, Microsoft included a free web server in Windows NT, 
which made our cross-platform server software entirely uneconomic. 
There was simply no longer a market for server software, which 
destroyed the server division of of my employer, Quarterdeck.
    As a consumer and small businessperson, I have been hurt by a 
lack of choice in operating systems and office automation 
applications. I had to buy a Windows machine to run certain 
programs, although I prefer to use the Macintosh OS. I know 
Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint very well, and would not use 
them if I had a choice. However, to share files with my consulting 
clients, I am required to pay for these applications.
    I believe that any settlement with Microsoft should have the 
following characteristics:

--It should reduce barriers to development of applications, 
especially those which compete with Microsoft products.
--It should require Microsoft to publish all secret APIs used 
by Microsoft inhouse and close partner developers.
--It should require Microsoft to disclose all patents 
protecting Windows APIs to avoid inadvertent infringements.
--It should allow users to replace Microsoft.NET with competing 
middleware.
--It should apply to all flavors of Windows which use the Win32 
and associated APIs.
--It should require advance notice and documentation of 
technical requirements and changes to the middleware.
--It should require complete and current documentation of 
Microsoft Office file formats, and infrequent changes to these 
formats.
--It should remove any restrictions on Open Source software.
--It should remove any restrictions on Microsoft software on 
competing Operating Systems.
--It should punish intentional incompatibilities, as Microsoft 
has used in the past to keep software from running on other 
Operating systems.
--It should restrict Microsoft from punishing any OEM, 
especially smaller companies, that do not want to license Windows 
for all their systems.
--It should disallow discounts based on sales of other 
products.
--It should have a strong and automatic enforcement mechanism, 
with some kind of heavy fines or damages for each infringement.
    The Proposed Final Judgement fails in all these aspects, 
allowing Microsoft to leverage its monopoly in operating systems to 
other aspects of technology and reducing the free market of ideas. I 
urge you to consider the issues above in creating a fair settlement 
that is in the public interest.
    Thank you,
    Avi Rappoport



MTC-00025681

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Lois Pearson
    E. 11114 48th Ave. Spokane, WA 99206



MTC-00025682

From: howard(a)tayler.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It will not 
prevent illegal monopolistic

[[Page 27673]]

behavior in the future, and will actually strengthen Microsoft's 
desktop monopoly, giving them MORE power to illegally exploit that 
desktop to soak consumers.
    Howard Tayler
    Orem, UT



MTC-00025683

From: Steve Corwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Throughout this case there's been a lot of talk about 
Microsoft's freedom to innovate, but what about my freedom to 
innovate? I'm a profesional software developer with over 10 years 
experience. Suppose I come up with an idea for a new piece of 
software, something that most anyone can use. Suppose I start a 
company to sell it. Under the terms of this agreement, Microsoft is 
free to release a competing product for free & put me out of 
business, just like they did to Netscape. Microsoft has almost $38 
billion in the bank to fund their efforts. I need venture capital. 
What venture capitalist will fund me? They know what happened to 
Netscape. They know what happened to IBM's OS/2. They figure they 
know what will happen to me. What about my freedom to innovate?
    Steve Corwin
    [email protected]



MTC-00025684

From: Maryln Pedgrift
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:05am
Subject: Litigation
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I wish to express my opinion regarding the Microsoft settlement 
that I thought was resolved in November. I wish to support this 
settlement in supporting Microsoft. Otherwise, no one will really 
benefit if this suit continues. Microsoft is a fair company and has 
agreed to respect other companies in which is fair and lawful. This 
company has benefited so many people and consumers will be hurt by a 
continuing litigation. It has agreed to comply with disclosure for 
use by its competitors and internal interfaces for the windows 
operating systems.
    Please support the settlement. Thank you so much.
    Very truly yours,
    Maryln Pedgrift
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025685

From: Edward W Goodwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    It is high time that the legal actions taken against Microsoft 
come to a final conclusion. I strongly support the Justice 
Department in determining a quick and final solution to this law 
suit. To continue the delay of a final settlement only enriches the 
pockets of attorneys and a few special interest groups. This case 
has gone on long enough. The Justice Department now has more 
pressing issues to face in light of 9/11.
    Sincerely,
    Edward W. Goodwin
    Greenville, SC



MTC-00025686

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to give my support to settlement of the antitrust 
settlement between Microsoft, the DOJ, and nine states. To let the 
greedy states and Microsoft competitors seek to persist in their 
efforts to prolong this case is plain wrong.
    In December of last year I bought a new Dell Computer. WindowsXP 
and Office 2000 are marvelous. Microsoft is a great company with 
great products. If competitors developed new products and managed as 
well as Microsoft they could earn money through their product sales 
insted of suing Microsoft.
    Stanley D. Fuqua
    5708 92nd Ave. S. E.
    Mercer Island, Wa
    98040



MTC-00025687

From: Elaine C. Martinez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Please accept the settlement so that Microsoft can get on with 
the business of serving the people of this country. It is my opinion 
that Microsoft should never have been singled out and persecuted as 
it has been in recent times. I love Microsoft products, and I think 
Mr. Gates is wonderful for giving people such great software at 
affordable prices.
    The ideas put forth by Microsoft are always geared toward 
increasing productivity, and everyone should support them so we can 
all have a better life.
    I'm retired now, but I really enjoyed working with some of the 
computers I used in my jobs as a secretary. I consistently found 
that the computers I liked were all ``loaded'' with 
Microsoft products! I hope the courts get finished with Microsoft so 
that Mr. Gates and his company can get back to business.
    Sincerely,
    Elaine C. Martinez
    Seattle, Washington



MTC-00025688

From: patrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:14am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Hello
    Please expedite this extravagant attorney parade to its 
inevitable conclusion ASAP.
    Do you guys think for one moment our real competitors, the 
Japanese, the Chinese, the Europeans, would waste any time trying to 
destroy one of their most successful companies the way we let the 
parasitic lawyers trash American firms like Microsoft?
    Please stop wasting our time and money with this show. Microsoft 
has helped the world become standardized and productiive.
    Please go chase real criminals, like the international drug 
syndicates ruining our childrens opportunities to even use 
Microsoft's products. Go chase the importers who are slowly 
destroying American productive manufacturing jobs. Do somthing that 
really helps the country, not just the attorneys. The 
``Justice'' department just makes me angry.
    Yours Truly,
    Patrick J. Driscoll P.E.



MTC-00025689

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Kathleen smith
    9617 S. Bell
    Chicago, IL 60643-1626



MTC-00025690

From: Harry Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General,
    One of the most productive companies in the United States is 
Microsoft. Due to its innovations in software, Microsoft has 
contributed a good share in the growth of the U.S. and the world 
economy. However, instead of rewarding for its contributions, it is 
punished for being too big and monopolistic. In its quest for 
growth, it may have hurt its competitors, but isn't that the way 
business operates? In competition, there is always one winner and 
many losers. But losers may improve and win the next time.
    Microsoft has done its part to rectify the complaints against 
it. It has proposed a solution that will be beneficial to schools 
and the disadvantaged. It is a cost-effective solution, and it is 
time to move on. Any additional litigation will only raise the cost 
of software for everyone. In the end, who really pays? It is the 
consumer. That is not the way to bring us out of recession.
    Thank you for reading this e-mail.
    Harry P. Lee
    HI-IQ Products, Peizen Industries
    P.O. Box 1198
    Camarillo, CA 93011-1198
    Ph: (805) 484-2454
    Fax: (805) 383-5909



MTC-00025691

From: John Battick

[[Page 27674]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to address the matter of the settlement in the 
Microsoft Antitrust suit. I am in agreement with the current 
settlement insofar as to say that no further action should be taken 
against Microsoft. Although I am in favor of accepting the antitrust 
settlement I believe that it was wrong from the start for Microsoft 
to have been sued. I do not think that Microsoft should have been 
penalized; rather, they should be rewarded for their innovation and 
creativity in the IT field. As I see it, the entire antitrust 
proceedings were unfounded and unfair to the concept of free 
enterprise.
    Now is definitely not the time to be handicapping an industry 
leader such as Microsoft with costly and time-consuming litigation. 
The current downturn in our economy needs the stimulation which the 
IT field can generate. By tying up both corporate and taxpayer 
dollars in the courtroom we are depriving the economy of valuable 
resources, which could be used to help get our country back on 
track. For these reasons I believe that accepting the current 
settlement is not only in the best interest of Microsoft, but it 
also in the greater interest of the economy as a whole.
    Sincerely,
    Nancy C. Battick



MTC-00025692

From: Daniel P. Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 25, 2002
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Well, adjudicated 
monopolist, anyway.
    This case should not end without a remedy that restores 
competition. Any remedy should have four concurrent goals: to put an 
end to the illegal monopoly; to prevent a return to anticompetitive 
behavior; to deny the violator the benefits of its illegal actions; 
and to ensure competition going forward.
    Microsoft must be forced to offer a version of Windows 
unburdened by Microsoft's monopolistic add-ons. The free market, and 
not Microsoft, must be the mechanism by which emergent technologies 
are judged. Microsoft must be permanently banned from forcing 
independent software vendors and internet service providers into 
exclusive contracts with Microsoft. Allowing a monopolist to 
withhold platform support from nascent and independent entrepreneurs 
is antithetical to the functioning of a free market, and strangles, 
rather than supports, real competition. The appointment of a Special 
Master overseeing Microsoft compliance must be a part of any 
settlement. The seed which became the ``second'' 
multimillion dollar effort to bring Microsoft into compliance with 
the law was planted with Microsoft's blatant and arrogant disregard 
of an earlier toothless compliance decree from the government. This 
remedy will meet the same expensive end if it is not accompanied by 
adequate enforcement.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Brown
    Saint Paul, Minn.



MTC-00025693

From: ewaldfernbach@ compuserve.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally , my name is Ewald Fernbach, 
I am working as IT manager for Vector Labs, 30 Ingold Rd., 
Burlingame, CA, 94087.
    Regarding the proposed settlement for the antitrust lawsuit 
against Microsoft I have the following concerns: The settlement 
fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly, and instead guarantees 
Microsoft's monopoly will survive and be allowed to expand into new 
markets. All monopolies must be carefully watched to make sure they 
don't abuse their monopoly position. Indeed, many monopolies are 
either broken up or carefully regulated in order to protect the 
public interest. Why is Microsoft allowed a waiver to this general 
rule? Does the Justice Department think that Microsoft is going to 
suddenly change its operating methodology? The proposed deal with 
the justice department does not address the fact that Microsoft has 
abused its monopoly and is likely to do so again, and again, and 
again in the future to the detriment of others.
    The proposed settlement does not address Microsoft's proven 
ability to retaliate against would-be competitors and to, in effect, 
appropriate the intellectual property of its competitors--and 
even its partners--in fact all who do business with Microsoft. 
The Appeals court found such past conduct by Microsoft highly 
egregious yet the Agreement does not address these issues. Again, 
many of us have been on the receiving end of these types of 
Microsoft bullying tactics. Bolting. The proposed settlement, as far 
as I understand it, does not address the issue that fueled consumer 
criticism and which gave rise to this antitrust case in 1998: 
Microsoft's decision to bind--or 
``bolt''--Internet Explorer to the Windows operating 
system in order to crush its browser competitor Netscape. This 
settlement gives Microsoft ``sole discretion'' to 
unilaterally determine that other products or services which don't 
have anything to do with operating a computer are nevertheless part 
of a ``Windows Operating System product.'' This creates a 
new exemption from parts of antitrust law for Microsoft and would 
leave Microsoft free in future versions to bolt financial services, 
cable television, or the Internet itself into Windows.
    Non MS standards. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft 
had unlawfully and intentionally deceived Java developers and 
``polluted'' the Java standard in order to protect its 
monopoly and defeat competition. Yet, the proposed settlement does 
not restrict Microsoft's ability to modify, alter or refuse to 
support computer industry standards, including Java, or to engage in 
campaigns to deceive developers of rival platforms, middleware or 
applications software. Indeed, Microsoft's decision not to 
distribute Java technologies with Windows XP, which hurts developers 
and consumers alike, will be the shape of things to come under the 
proposed deal unless the Court requires Microsoft to continue to 
support accepted industry standards such as Java technologies, even 
if they do not originate from Microsoft.
    Middleware. As part of the proposed settlement, Microsoft is 
required to allow the PC manufacturers to hide Microsoft middleware 
programs and allow them to install icons or links to competing 
middleware programs. The only problem is that the PC manufacturers 
are not allowed to remove the code that could be used to reactivate 
Microsoft's middleware programs. In other words, two weeks into 
owning the machine, a consumer could be asked if they want to 
reconfigure their desktop, install all the Microsoft middleware and 
delete all the competitor's middleware, which many users would 
undoubtedly do, without really knowing what they are doing. If they 
then would find out that the reinstalled Microsoft product is 
inferior to the competitors product, they would not have an easy way 
to fall back to the previous settings.
    Communication Protocols. The settlement states that Microsoft 
must now share information on how its middleware and server software 
work together with Windows. However, Microsoft does not have to 
disclose this information for middleware it does not distribute 
separate from Windows, or for middleware it has not trademarked. 
This leaves the door open for ``bolting'' discussed above. 
If Microsoft wants to drive a competitor out of business, they just 
attach the specific type of software the competitor is involved with 
to their Windows platform. Once they do that, they do not have to 
share the API's and other basic information that is needed by the 
competitor to ensure its software works with Windows. And without 
reliable access to 90% of the PC's in the world--no competitor 
can survive. Once the competitor is out of business, Microsoft can 
separate the software from the Windows package, sell it separately 
and derive huge margins. In addition, Microsoft does not have to 
disclose their information to companies that in ``their 
view'' do not have a ``viable business'' (defined as 
selling at least 1 million units in the previous year).
    This loophole will allow Microsoft to hamper new software start-
ups from becoming true competitors simply if in Microsoft's 
``view'' they are not a ``viable business''. Who 
can really say which new start-up is a ``viable 
business''? Certainly this should not be left to the judgment 
of a voracious monopolist. Lastly, Microsoft does not have to 
disclose this coding information if Microsoft deems such disclosure 
would harm the company's security or software licensing. There is no 
provision to say who is to make this determination, leaving it on a 
defacto basis up to Microsoft Enforcement of Settlement Compliance. 
The proposed settlement requires a three-man compliance team to 
oversee Microsoft's compliance with

[[Page 27675]]

the Agreement. Microsoft will appoint one person, the Justice 
Department another, and the third will be chosen by the two people 
already appointed. In essence, Microsoft will control half the team. 
This new team will not be allowed to inform the public of their 
work, and cannot impose fines. In addition, the work of the 
committee cannot be admitted into court in any enforcement 
proceeding. The committee's sole remedy for infractions is for them 
to inform the Justice Department of the infraction and then the 
Justice Department will have to conduct their own research and 
commence litigation to stop the infraction. The Justice Department 
does not need a compliance group to tell them when Microsoft is 
doing something wrong, so in reality this group is just a smoke 
screen and will waste taxpayers money.
    In conclusion I think that the proposed settlement has nothing 
to do with justice but represents the capitulation of the judicial 
system of the USA. The message this settlement sends is: ``you 
can get away with anything if you have enough money in your 
corner''. This is a very dangerous and discouraging message for 
corporations as well as for individuals and will definitely add to 
the already significant corrosion of the publics trust in their 
country's judicial system.
    To me it looks like with the proposed settlement the Justice 
Department is trying to pretend that justice has been served, 
whereas in reality Microsoft was able to put itself above the law. 
As citizen of this country and as computer user I urge you to do 
everything to prevent Microsoft from continuing its detrimental 
business practices. I strongly oppose to accepting the proposed 
settlement in the form discussed above and I suggest a thorough 
revision of the whole case.
    Best Regards
    Ewald Fernbach



MTC-00025694

From: Jack Sperry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
15706 SE 173rd Street
Renton, WA 98058-9106
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to address the recent settlement between Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice. I am more than happy with this 
agreement and think it should stand. Any further litigation will be 
counter-productive and hamper any chance of revitalizing our 
economy. I did not support the initial lawsuit. There was no 
consumer abuse. I use Microsoft products because they are quality 
products at a reasonable price. What's the problem? If there were 
other products out there of equal quality and equal price, I would 
use those, but there aren't. Microsoft's competitors have had the 
same chances as Microsoft. They just have not been able to perform 
as well. Hence, they run to the government for a leg up.
    I am also concerned with the intervention of government in what 
is supposedly our free market system. Government is taking the 
intellectual property of a company, and forcing same to disburse it 
among its competitors. Why should anyone bother to invent something 
any more if they know it will be subject to delineation among their 
competitors if they are ``too successful''? Would you?
    Microsoft has agreed to this principle in that it has agreed to 
disclose for use by its competitors various interfaces that are 
internal to Windows'' operating system products; Microsoft has 
also agreed to help companies write software that networks well with 
their own. Enough is enough. I urge you to give your support to this 
agreement and allow Microsoft, and this country, to get back to 
business.
    Sincerely,
    Jack C. Sperry



MTC-00025696

From: Brent Pickert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to make my voice heard in the Microsoft Antitrust 
settlement.
    I do not believe that the current settlement will discourage 
Microsoft in any way from continuing the practices that have led to 
the trial. I believe that whatever settlement is finally approved 
needs to make certain that not only is Microsoft punished for their 
years of law breaking, but also that the settlement puts into place 
avenues for competitors to make inroads that will add competition to 
the market. Thank you for your time, Brent Pickert



MTC-00025697

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:26am
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,
    JOYCE GOETZ
    32128 CANYON CREST CT.
    WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91361



MTC-00025698

From: Florian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:28am



MTC-00025699

From: Harry P Gallagher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:28am
Subject: leave Microsoft alone.
    without them there would be no computer industry. I started out 
twelve years ago with an apple 2C and progressed to a PC. Microsoft 
made it possible for the unsophisticated operator to learn to 
operate a computer. Without windows there would have been no 
computer industry like it is today. They built a better mousetrap 
and the world beat a path to their door. It created a huge industry 
which benefited the federal government with more tax income due to 
the many companies that sold computers. Stay off their back and be 
glad they are in business.
    H.P. Gallagher
    4738 Collinos Way,
    Oceanside, CA 92056



MTC-00025700

From: AL OIEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:29am
Subject: DESTRUCTION OF LIBERTY IN AMERICA
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
    IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO COMPETE IN THE MARKETPLACE THESE DAYS, 
WHINE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THEY WILL REWARD YOU BY FORCING YOUR 
COMPETITION OUT OF BUSINESS. ANOTHER TRIUMPH OF THE MOTHERS OF 
AMERICA.
    al



MTC-00025701

From: grouch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The ``Proposed Final Judgement'' in the case of 
``Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)'' appears to be 
another recipe for failure in a long line of such failures by the 
Department of Justice with regards to Microsoft. It appears to have 
no strength with which to interrupt the predatory practices of which 
Microsoft has been found guilty. It appears to have no ability to 
restore competition in a market which has been devastated by the 
illegal leveraging of monopoly power for which Microsoft has been 
found guilty. It appears completely inadequate to anticipate the 
future moves Microsoft may make to continue illegally leveraging 
their existing and expanding monopoly powers.
    The provisions of the Proposed Final Judgement appear on the 
surface to be adequate. However, there are so many exceptions and 
phrases of ``nothing ... shall prohibit'' that the 
settlement is rendered little more than a catalog of past behaviors 
that the Department of Justice meekly requests that Microsoft not 
repeat, if it's not too inconvenient for Microsoft. One provision 
goes so far as to give Microsoft an easy way to circumvent all of 
the provisions regarding APIs; they only have to tie those APIs 
somehow to security measures and claim revealing those APIs would 
compromise security. It should be remembered how

[[Page 27676]]

Microsoft claimed their browser was a necessary and integral part of 
the operating system. Even the definitions are inadequate for they 
allow much leeway for Microsoft to continue expanding their monopoly 
into other marketing areas.
    The Proposed Final Judgement does little to address the 
applications barrier to entry. Every provision that prohibits 
retaliation by Microsoft against OEMs, ISVs, or IHVs, includes 
loopholes concerning security or intellectual property rights which 
allow Microsoft an easy side-stepping of the prohibitions. 
Additionally, nothing is done about the network effects of Microsoft 
products in creating the barriers to competitors. The data formats 
of all Microsoft software will continue to be a fearsome weapon 
preventing the use of any competing product. So long as Microsoft is 
allowed to hold data hostage to its file formats, the monopoly power 
is assured and can be leveraged to extend that monopoly in other 
areas. No competitor may make inroads on a network on which 
Microsoft has established its lock on the customers data. Once 
again, while the Department of Justice picks nits with the past, 
Microsoft has moved on to other ways of ensuring monopolistic power 
over computer users. The findings of fact showed how Microsoft 
effectively eliminated the threat to its monopoly from middleware 
products. The proposed final judgement does nothing to remedy this, 
and in fact section III.H. has two exceptions that handily provide 
the means for Microsoft to extend its monopoly into the server 
market with ActiveX ties between Microsoft middleware and Microsoft 
servers. As for Sun's Java, Microsoft is well underway to using its 
current monopoly powers to supplant Java with .NET and C#, again 
outpacing the Department of Justice as it has repeatedly in the 
past.
    I do not pretend to know the protocols and fine points of the 
legal profession, but it looks like the criminal in this case gets 
off without paying for the crime and gets to define much of the 
contraints, or lack thereof, placed on the criminal's future 
actions. I see no punishment, no restitution, no barrier to 
Microsoft continuing to harm customers, competitors, and the 
computing industry in general in this proposed final judgement.
    Terry Vessels



MTC-00025702

From: Larry Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:33am
Subject: Microsoft case comments
    I don't believe the current penalties against Microsoft do 
justice to them for their wrongdoings or for us, as consumers who 
are seeing as they settle this case they are manipulating the 
hardware/software industry on other fronts which most likely will 
lead to more cases against their practices.
    The breakup of Microsoft was in my opinion more just as it would 
unleverage the company from multiple in-house assaults on various 
markets from its serveral fronts (operating systems, applications, 
internet, and development tools). The Education idea as mentioned is 
only a benefit to microsoft in the long run rather than a 
punishment. I don't think it is fair to tell a compnay to do create 
something for or support a platform it does not have 
interest--but if one holds a monopoly, they should be 
responsible for keeping the playing field stable and open for 
competition--Microsoft needs to offer inroads for new 
technologies (publish standard interfacing detail to key operating 
system and performance features) to make a product that can work 
with others (and that will still work with others for a significant 
period of time) or that others can be data compatible with 
microsoft's without the threat of them just changing the rules and 
dargging all the hapless comsumers along with them thus leaving 
everyone else incompatible again. When you have an 80%+ stake in a 
broad but key technology (the OS) and with the right marketing you 
know you can get that 80% to purchase any upgrade in two years (i.e. 
offer corporate/government/educational discounts on newer but 
slightly incompatible technology, which forces the need for lower 
level businesses, local government and consumners to upgrade to also 
be compatible with the higher levels,) whether they really needed to 
or not.
    I think Microsoft has a need to innovate but also live up to its 
(and its competitor's) promise of ``standard'' so others 
can use microsoft's ``standard'' to build from without 
having it turn into the ``old standard'' my MS too soon. 
If Microsoft continues to ``business as usual'' it will 
keep costing the conumers: corporate, government, public and private 
in upgrades and constant re-invention of our technologies and while 
we keep paying MS for their un-fair practices.
    Larry Anderson
    San Andreas, CA
    (209) 754-1262



MTC-00025703

From: crb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is 
deeply flawed and will only allow Microsoft to continue its 
predatory tactics in one form or another. I've spent years trying to 
circumvent Microsoft's control over my personal computer--for 
instance, I had to spend many hours figuring out why Netscape 
Navigator wasn't downloaded when I installed my Mac OS. Finally 
figured out that Netscape Navigator WAS on the disk, but that I had 
to install it manually (it was obvious that NN was meant to be 
hidden from the average user).
    Microsoft has harmed personal computer users like me who want 
alternatives to Microsoft products. I am a fervent user of Apple 
computers, and I want real choice in the marketplace. If Microsoft 
is allowed to evade any meaningful sanctions, it will just extend 
its monopoly power indefinitely. Please punish and constrain 
Microsoft in some real fashion.
    Thank you.
    Colette Brooks



MTC-00025704

From: Andrew Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:35am
Subject: I do not agree
    This just a light slap on the wrists to Microsoft. Regardless of 
the alleged importance to the computer industry. Microsoft should be 
made to understand that you can not just break the law and bully 
competitors.
    >>>>>Andrew Stewart<<<<<<



MTC-00025705

From: Bob McKenna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please see my attached letter requesting an end to the 
government prosecution of Microsoft in the interest of American 
consumers and investors.
    Bob McKenna
    email address: [email protected]
    Phone: (713) 690-6996
    2734 Bernadette Ln.
    Houston, TX 77043-1801



MTC-00025705-0001

Robert G. McKenna
2734 Berrnadette Lane
Houston, TX 77043-1801
Januarry 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 request that the government 
conclude and settle the case against Microsoft. After three years of 
litigation, too much time and money has been spent in negotiating 
this case. The investing public has suffered significant losses, as 
the government has drug Microsoft through the legal system. 
Continuing this litigation process would serve only to decrease 
important federal resources and further impact consumers and 
investors. Microsoft has not gotten off easy in this settlement 
agreement. The settlement that was reached may not satisfy everyone, 
but it is in the best interest of all to enact it quickly.
    The terms of the settlement agreement are very fair in that they 
provide for many compromises on behalf of Microsoft. Microsoft has 
agreed to license Windows at the same rate to the largest PC 
manufacturers. In addition to this, Microsoft will also disclose all 
of the information regarding the internal interface and protocols of 
the Windows system. This allows developers to develop new software 
and hardware that is increasingly compatible with the Windows 
system. Moreover the formation of a technical review board will 
provide for the oversight of Microsoft's further action. This 
technical board will prevent Microsoft from entering into any 
anticompetitive behavior. Hence, I believe that the terms of the 
settlement are fair, further enacting the settlement will benefit 
the technology industries. Enacting this settlement will help 
restore confidence in the suffering technology industry. Given the 
current state of the economy, this is the best course for the
    Department of Justice.
    Sincerely,
    Robert G. McKenna
    Robert McKenna

[[Page 27677]]



MTC-00025705-0002



MTC-00025706

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    David Taylor
    3120 E. Westcott
    Visalia, CA 93292



MTC-00025707

From: TMM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    Please make sure that Microsoft pays the the highest penalty 
possible for the damage they have done to people by trying to 
monopolize the computer software industry. Also don't let them make 
unfair inroads against Apple computer in the education market by 
``dumping'' PCs on schools, let Microsoft make cash 
donations instead!
    Thank you,
    Tom McGrath
    1323 Princeton St.
    Santa Monica, CA 90404



MTC-00025708

From: JC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an American citizen and an avid computer user I'd like to 
send my voice in regards to the Microsoft Vs DOJ Settlement.
    We all know that Microsoft has abused its monopoly power to harm 
competitiors and consumers. Judge Jackson & The Appeals Court 
have told us that. That's not in dispute here. It's what we need to 
do to prevent further abuse of power by Microsoft that we need to 
resolve.
    What Mr. James and DOJ agreed to in the settlement is nothing 
but a ``slap in the wrist''. It does not open up 
competition, it leaves OEMs handcuffed and does not affect 
Microsoft's behavior in any way. What it does do is legalizes some 
of the business practices that Microsoft has been thought to be 
doing illegally.
    Microsoft attacks competitors on several fronts. To kill off 
Netscape and RealPlayer they simply bundle their own competing 
products in Windows and stops OEM from bundling competing products. 
They refuse to offer a version of Windows without their own 
``middleware'' programs. They use a different method to 
kill of competing Operating Systems. First they prevent OEMs from 
setting up dual-boot systems. Thus that effectively eliminated OS/2 
and BeOs out of the market. Those two products were far superior to 
Windows but Microsoft flexed its antitrust muscle to knock them out.
    What does Mr. James offer as a solution to this problem? He 
forces Microsoft to normalize Windows license prices. But the 
loophole is that Microsoft can punish OEMs by inflating the cost of 
Microsoft Office licenses or can simply refust to licese Windows. So 
that remedy has no effect. Next he opened up OEMs to bundling 
competing middleware applications. But Microsoft will not have offer 
a version of Windows without the apps bundled. I guess that's enough 
of all this explanation, I'm sure you've heard everything already. 
As a computer user who has followed this case very carefully from 
the start and know all the ins and outs, I know this 
``deal'' is a raw-deal for the consumers and competitors. 
Remember the DOJ has won this case in trial, there is really no 
reason to settle for a slap in the writst now. You could've done 
that years ago.
    Why waste the effort that was put into the case? Just my 10 
cents.



MTC-00025709

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I believe that the proposed settlement offers a reasonable 
compromise that will enhance the ability of seniors and all 
Americans to access the Internet and use innovative software 
products to make their computer experience easier and more 
enjoyable.
    This settlement itself is tough on Microsoft, but is a fair 
outcome for all parties--particularly senior consumers. Most 
important, this settlement will have a very positive impact on the 
American economy and will help pull us from the recession we have 
experienced over the past year. Consumer interests have been well 
served, and the time to end this costly and damaging litigation has 
come.
    Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few 
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest bigwigs. Not one 
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Bohdan (Don) Tuziw
    3108 Coffey Ave
    Bellevue NE 68123-1331
    PH: 402-291-7177
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00025710

From: Olivia Stalter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:39am
Subject: microsoft settlement Letter sent. Olivia Stalter 
[email protected]



MTC-00025711

From: Clifford R. Earle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear US Department of Justice and States Attorneys General: I 
must say, after following Microsoft in the press for the last few 
years, and the antitrust action specifically, that the proposed 
settlement in this case seems to do be a poor solution. The reasons 
are various, ranging from the settlement's poor definition of 
``covered OEM''; to the too-limited 14-day protection of 
an OEM's desktop configuration; to the exceptions for invocation of 
Microsoft Middleware; to impossible conditions for membership in the 
Technical Committee; to the appointment of an *internal* (?!) 
Microsoft compliance officer; to the impractical limitation of a 
one-time only extension of the final judgement; to a confusing and 
contradictory definitions of Microsoft Middleware, Platform 
Software, and Windows Operating System Product; to a limiting and 
back-looking definition of personal computer; to the lack of any 
language whatsoever that prevents the whole agreement from being 
rendered null and void if only part of it is--all of which are 
avoidable or even exploitable by a company which seems to know 
little, if any, shame.
    Please do not allow such a flawed resolution to a solid case.
    Best regards,
    Clifford R. Earle
    Sunland, CA
    (California, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia were 
excluded from the cc line only due to their regretable use of on-
line feedback forms rather than e-mail addresses.)
    CC:[email protected]. 
us@inetgw,[email protected]...



MTC-00025712

From: cgmccurdy@aol. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:39am
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,
    Cynthia McCurdy

[[Page 27678]]

    920 Brookwood Dr.
    New Albanyh, IN 47150



MTC-00025713

From: Robin Harding
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:42am
Subject: Fw: MSFT Settelment.
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:38 PM
To: [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: MSFT Settelment.
    Following is a letter I am sending to the attorney general in 
support of MSFT case settlement. If you agree in settlement and 
would like to forward, following is the Email address etc.
    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
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support of the United States 
Department of Justice's recent efforts to settle the Microsoft 
antitrust lawsuit. This case really should not have been brought 
against Microsoft. Microsoft's innovations have and continue to 
contribute immensly to the productivity and economy of the United 
States . Microsoft single-handedly through ``Window's Operating 
System'' made computers accessible to the world.
    Computers are now in virtually every household and bussness in 
the country. Microsoft may have been aggressive in their business 
dealings, but that is the way of the business world in a free-market 
society. Aggressive business tactics are not necessarily the same as 
antitrust violations. Despite my feeling that this case should not 
have been filed, at this stage of the game I think the wise course 
of action is to settle the case. The settlement agreement the 
parties negotiated is fairly reasonable.
    It will require Microsoft to refrain from retaliating against 
computer manufacturers that install software other than Windows on 
their computers. Along those same lines, it will require Microsoft 
to not retaliate against software developers who develop programs 
that compete with Windows. These concessions should help the 
competition operate on a more level playing field.
    I appreciate your efforts to settle this case.
    Sincerely,
    Roger CoxGet more from the Web.



MTC-00025714

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Three years ago, the U.S. Department of Justice charged 
Microsoft with having engaged in anti-competitive behavior based on 
allegations by its top competitors. Many have argued, and I believe, 
that Microsoft was singled out by its jealous competitors and 
sympathetic government bureaucrats because of its success and a 
desire to see it punished.
    I am aware that the Justice Department is in the final stages of 
deliberating on the proposed Microsoft settlement to decide whether 
to accept the settlement or to litigate it further. I strongly 
believe that the proposed settlement offers a reasonable compromise 
that will enhance the ability of seniors and all Americans to access 
the internet and use innovative software products to make their 
computer experience easier and more enjoyable. In my opinion it 
appears that a few of Microsoft's competitors have continued their 
aggressive lobbying campaign to undermine the settlement negotiated 
with the federal government and nine states. The settlement itself 
is tough on Microsoft, but is a fair outcome for all 
parties--particularly senior consumers. Most important, this 
settlement will have a very positive impact on the American economy 
and will help pull us from the recession we have experienced over 
the past year. Consumer interests have been well served, and the 
time to end this costly and damaging litigation has come. Dragging 
out this legal battle further will only benefit a few wealthy 
competitors, lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one new 
product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
    Respectfully,
    Perry L Phipps
    1418 Virginia Ave
    Severn, MD 21144-2632
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025715

From: Lois Cope
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:43am
Subject: AOL has surprised many of its former 
``constituents''
    Sirs:
    I am very disappointed to learn that AOL has just filed another 
lawsuit against Microsoft. It has gotten to the level of 
``silly'', jealous behavior. As it happens, I was one of 
AOL's first customers I think in the early eighties, when I was 
using an Apple II in business. Steve Case is a native of Hawaii and 
I've been very proud of him as a former classmate of one of my 
daughters.
    When the company needed money and offered ``deals'' if 
people would advance them funding, I personally did so. Eventually, 
however, I dumped the Apples and went to the Microsoft equipment 
because it was more reliable as well as for many other reasons. I 
eventually have ``dumped'' aol but use another of their 
products, Roadrunner, the broadband part of the business as do all 
the power users I know. To see them turn on Microsoft, which lent 
them I think $150,000,000 a few years ago when they needed it is 
really shocking. There is no reason all the software equipment 
cannot be used together if desired.
    I see no reason to give into them now, when the very reasonable 
settlement has been reached. It is a frivolous lawsuit which appears 
to have been brought by losers.
    Thank you for listening and good luck in your endeavors.
    Aloha,
    Lois P. Cope
    808 488-9413



MTC-00025716

From: Marjoroie Dale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:44am
Subject: letter to Ashcroft
    Letter has been sent on Microsoft's behalf. Hope it helps!
    Marjorie Dale



MTC-00025717

From: mom2000
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    In my humble opinion, it seems Microsoft's competitors are doing 
everything they can to leverage the Justice Department to do what 
they could not do in a free market (increase their market share on 
their on merits). If we the consumers (the market place) did not 
prefer Microsoft's products over its competitors; and it does have 
competitors, they would not be the market leader they are today.
    With that said, I admonish, that the penalties not penalize 
Microsoft for its market share, but, only for those areas of 
liability it should bear for any illegal or proven unfair business 
practices.
    Thank you for all consideration.
    MKTG. OPTY=$$$
    Marketing Opportunities=Money!
    Michael Larkin, IT Executive
    1331b Crique Way
    Roswell, Ga. 30076-5232
    770 641-6591



MTC-00025718

From: Glen Richardson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully support the proposed settlement between Microsoft and 
the DOJ. Let's end this now.
    Glen Richardson
    Fort Worth, Texas



MTC-00025719

From: Myroslawa Tuziw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I believe that the proposed settlement offers a reasonable 
compromise that will enhance the ability of seniors and all

[[Page 27679]]

Americans to access the Internet and use innovative software 
products to make their computer experience easier and more 
enjoyable.
    This settlement itself is tough on Microsoft, but is a fair 
outcome for all parties--particularly senior consumers. Most 
important, this settlement will have a very positive impact on the 
American economy and will help pull us from the recession we have 
experienced over the past year. Consumer interests have been well 
served, and the time to end this costly and damaging litigation has 
come.
    Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few 
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest bigwigs. Not one 
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Myroslawa (Myra) Tuziw
    3108 Coffey Ave
    Bellevue NE 68123-1331
    PH: 402-291-7177
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00025720

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam
    I find it absurd that Microsoft should be permitted to provide 
to public institutions their operating system and other software as 
well as hardware that is specific to running their operating system 
in lieu of a pure cash settlement. Accepting this settlement offer 
only strengthens Microsoft's monopolistic position and paves the way 
for further abuses within an environment in which they are not 
historically strong (i.e. schools). In the long run this will stifle 
innovation and contribute to a lack of diversity of computer 
operating systems and hardware. This in turn will make the computing 
infrastructure more vulnerable to cyber attack and the damage such 
an attack would produce would be more severe. I urge you to resist 
the proposed settlement and make the settlement for their illegal 
activities a true and just settlement which will undo some of the 
harm Microsoft has inflicted on the computer industry and on 
consumers. Do not be taken in by this transparent attempt by 
Microsoft to turn their defeat into their victory.
    Sincerely
    Robert Price
    Research Scientist



MTC-00025721

From: Mike Ryan
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/26/02 1:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ
    I urge you to settle the case with Microsoft. The consumer was 
not hurt by their market dominance. I was actually helped.
    As an engineer at a company of 850, when computers first came to 
the office only the lucky few who had bosses that liked computers 
could get all of the software they wanted since each item was sold 
separately and you had to justify each one. And what a mess it was. 
Some were using non-compatible programs and not all of us had that 
great boss and could only get minimal software. Then Microsoft 
started bundling all of the great programs together and the price 
came way down. Not only that, we all were given ``Office'' 
and everyone had compatible programs and everyone had all of the 
great applications not just the privileged few. So please tell me 
how did that hurt me. And this browser question, what a bunch of BS. 
I used Netscape for a long time. Everybody had that option. Anybody 
with a computer could down load it from their web site. But after a 
while it just did not have as many features as MS offered. So I 
switched to the better program. So how did I get hurt? I didn't. 
Look at Apple, they have a great computer but they always built it 
themselves and charged too much for both hardware and software. They 
did not allow clones, which by the way produced the great computer 
revolution we know today. So I bought a lower cost computer with 
lower cost software. So how did I as a consumer get hurt? I didn't. 
Please settle the case with Microsoft and let them continue to 
produce great software for the consumer at a great value.
    Mike Ryan
    Bellevue WA
    425 641-6920



MTC-00025722

From: Clay C.Landis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Any company with this much contempt for the laws of our nation 
should been taught a lesson. Microsoft's monopoly has hurt the 
development of computing and created an atmosphere where smaller 
developers simply give up on projects instead of trying to compete 
with a company willing to do whatever it takes to beat them for no 
other reason than to beat them. Microsoft produces products that are 
full of programming errors and poor security that has cost many 
companies, schools and government offices millions if not billions 
of dollars. They are not an asset to this country, they are a 
cancer. And no settlement that adds to Microsoft's monopoly should 
be considered.
    Clay C. Landis



MTC-00025723

From: Tim Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am vehemently opposed to the current proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I believe it is nothing more than a slap on the wrists, 
and that it does nothing to curb or even dissuade Microsoft from 
future abuses of its monopoly powers. Microsoft has already 
repositioned itself so that if the current proposal is left 
unaltered, they will have already slipped themselves through its 
monstrous loopholes!
    Anything short of a breakup of the type ATT experienced will not 
bring sufficient competition back to the market. As long as 
Microsoft has the dominant share of the market, they will continue 
their illegal abuse of monopolistic power.
    Thank you for listening.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy W. Lewis



MTC-00025724

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:56am
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,
    Joy. Holt
    2210 S. 50th St.
    Kansas City, KS 66106



MTC-00025725

From: Marcia M Clarke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:00am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I would like to express my view point regarding Microsoft. I 
feel consumer interest has been well served and it is time to end 
this damaging and costly litigation against Microsoft. Please accept 
the proposed settlement as fair and in consumer's best interest. 
Feel the settlement will have a very positive impact on the American 
Economy which is so greatly needed at this time.
    Thank you.
    Marcia Clarke



MTC-00025726

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 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 express my opinion regarding the three-
year-long antitrust suit involving the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft. I do not feel that the suit should have been brought in 
the first place, but since it was I now feel that it is time for it 
to come to a close. Microsoft has done their part to bring this 
matter to a close. They have agreed to terms and conditions that 
were not even in the original suit.
    Every company has a right to explore opportunities and every 
company's goal is to

[[Page 27680]]

dominate their marketplace. Microsoft did that. Their competition is 
angry that they have been left behind. Yes, Windows is the dominant 
operating system. Due to many factors, including the fact that 
Microsoft developed relationships and contracts with hardware 
manufactures and other companies to bundle products. This is common 
practice in a competitive market. There are other products on the 
market from which consumers may choose. Consumers choose not to 
alter the operating system that came with their computer, but they 
may if they wish.
    Microsoft dominates the market because they have the best 
product for the money. If it were not for Microsoft, I do not 
believe I would be writing this to you on a computer smaller than 
the size of my father's first adding machine.
    In my mind this suit was unnecessary and unwarranted in the 
first place. Now I feel the Department of Justice needs to support 
the settlement and bring a close to all further litigations. 
Microsoft has done more than what was necessary in this situation.
    Sincerely,
    Lyn Hiatt
    8714 13th Ave. NW
    Seattle, Wa 98117



MTC-00025727

From: noel vaneynde
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Please note my dissatisfaction with the Proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. I have been an active Macintosh user for over 10 years 
and the actions that Microsoft has taken to limit access to their 
systems and their barrier to entry into competitive operating 
systems has caused me and my business great trouble over the years.
    The settlement in it's current form will only succeed in 
strengthening Microsoft's hold on the educational markets and make 
the current problems worse.
    I would be willing to discuss these matters further with you at 
your request.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Noel VanEynde
    Afterimages Film & Video
    W: 312-661-1122



MTC-00025728

From: Alice Schafer(MITRE)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-Not tightly drawn!
    I think that the Microsoft Settlement leave too many loopholes 
for MS to use. Do not go through with it!
    Sincerely,
    Alice Schafer
    11 Flagg Rd.
    Acton, Mass 01720



MTC-00025729

From: Guy Groner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am a Certified Internal Auditor (CIA), Certified Information 
Systems (CISA) and CISSP, a member of the Institute of Internal 
Auditors, the Information System Audit and Control Association and 
Information Systems Security Association. I have 18 years'' 
experience is managing and auditing computer systems from 
microcomputers to mainframe computer. I would like to comment on the 
Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft. 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. 
Additionally, in the the computer security field already have to 
deal with the heightened risks associated with the numerous viruses 
and ``hacks'' of Microsoft software due to their dominance 
in the market. The risks of a monopoly are greater than merely the 
loss of competition.
    Sincerely,
    Guy Groner, CIA, CISA, CISSP, Wheaton, Illinois

[[Page 27681]]



MTC-00025730

From: Daniel Voran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    I am sending this email to comment on the Microsoft Settlement 
about the pending settlement between the United States Government, 
several individual states and Microsoft Corp.
    I find the settlement to be too lenient for Microsoft. The 
settlement does not do nearly enough to control Microsoft's 
monopoly. Microsoft is now trying to take control of the internet 
through its .net initiatives. A more appropriate settlement would 
have been to split Microsoft into three or four companies. The 
proposed settlement is just a slap on the wrist for the company and 
if it is approved, Microsoft will continue its monopolistic 
practices to the detriment of the computer industry.
    Daniel Voran
    [email protected]
    Avenue Services, Inc.
    PO Box 23219
    Seattle, WA 98102-4105
    206-325-4250



MTC-00025731

From: ROBERT WARREN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:11am
Subject: DOJ--Microsoft
    Dear DOJ,
    Over the past 20 yrs one cannot help but see the Lawyer 
Organization may mean well, but the road to hell is always paved 
with half-truths. It's sad to see this stand-off has nothing to do 
with the well being of the people. In a comical way, it appears our 
States are employing a reverse Enron run. Please think of America's 
future in your decision, we have enough economic stress.
    Sincerily,
    Bob Warren
    Towaco NJ.



MTC-00025733

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:14am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please finish negotiations and make a settlement soon. It is not 
beneficial to the public or to seniors to drag this litigation on 
any longer. The proposed settlement seems fair.
    Thank you,
    Megan Duffy
    Breckenridge, CO 80424



MTC-00025734

From: Ray W Daugherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judges:
    It is high time that this subject is laid to rest. In my opinion 
it never should have been started in the first place and accepted by 
the courts. I believe that the patent rights laws should have given 
protection to Microsoft for what they developed in their own 
laboratories. The drug companies have protection, why not Microsoft 
too? Ford and or Chrysler cannot sue General Motors to have them 
release the specific plans used to develop and produce the very 
efficient Cadillac 32V Northstar engine, can they? So, how come a 
competitor of Microsoft can do what they are trying to do?
    The sniveling competitors that did not have the expertise to 
develop the programs on their own should have not even been listened 
to. They should even be charged for all the expense that Microsoft 
has been shackled with to defend themselves.
    If someone develops a better mousetrap, he is entitled to any 
and all net proceeds that he can derive from it to compensate him 
for his time, efforts and ingenuity in developing it. The same 
principle should also protect Microsoft from undermining by unhappy 
competitors. They are entitled to any and all profits for their 
efforts! Enough said! I will be eagerly observing what happens with 
this matter!
    Ray W. Daugherty
    [email protected]
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:21:20-0500
Subject: SENIORS COALTION URGENT ACTION ALERT Microsoft and big 
government
Message-ID: <200201252221 
[email protected]>
URGENT ACTION ALERT
    Your immediate response is needed!
    Three years ago, the U.S. Department of Justice charged 
Microsoft with having engaged in anti-competitive behavior based on 
allegations by its top competitors. Many have argued that Microsoft 
was singled out by its jealous competitors and sympathetic 
government bureaucrats because of its success and a desire to see it 
punished.
    The Justice Department is in the final stages of deliberating on 
the proposed Microsoft settlement to decide whether to accept the 
settlement or to litigate it further. The Seniors Coalition strongly 
believes that the proposed settlement offers a reasonable compromise 
that will enhance the ability of seniors and all Americans to access 
the internet and use innovative software products to make their 
computer experience easier and more enjoyable.
    Unfortunately, a few of Microsoft's competitors have continued 
their aggressive lobbying campaign to undermine the settlement 
negotiated with the federal government and nine states. The 
settlement itself is tough on Microsoft, but is a fair outcome for 
all parties--particularly senior consumers. Most important, 
this settlement will have a very positive impact on the American 
economy and will help pull us from the recession we have experienced 
over the past year.
    You can offer your opinion to the Justice Department to counter 
the self-serving and punitive lobbying effort of Microsoft's 
competitors. Current law (known as the Tunney Act) allows public 
comment on the proposed settlement up until January 28th. The U.S. 
District Court will then decide whether the settlement is in the 
``public interest.'' Please send your strong message to 
the Justice Department that consumer interests have been well 
served, and the time to end this costly and damaging litigation has 
come.
    Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few 
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one 
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
    YOUR VOICE IS VERY IMPORTANT AND TIME IS VERY SHORT.
    Only comments received by January 28th will be included in the 
public record and submitted to the Court for its consideration. 
Consumers need to win this battle, so please send your comments 
immediately to the Justice Department--either by email or by 
fax--and do it before January 28th.
    Don't let these special interests defeat the public interest. 
Email: [email protected] . In the Subject line of the 
e-mdash;mail,type ``Microsoft Settlement.''
    Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 
1-202-616-9937
    To find out more about the settlement and the Tunney Act comment 
period, go to the Department of Justice Website at: http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms
--settle.htm
    Raising your voice now on this issue really will have an impact.
    Thank you for your time.
    Mary M. Martin
    Chairman and Executive Director
    The Seniors Coalition
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025735

From: William Glover
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ).
    The judgement 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.



MTC-00025736

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement..
    This is THE most obtrusive, ridiculous and annoying.. I do 
subscribe to AOL, but that is short lived I am sure.........I am a 
72 year old widow, and have owned a pc for 3 years....prior to that 
I had never even sat in front of one... Clicked in to AOL, and I am 
still there....It is easier because I know it......Well, guess 
what.....not for long. I have the ability (and did) download the XP 
from the ME, so I am not a real dummy. Our Mr. Gates is the why we 
are here from the beginning......hats off to him...We owe him SO 
much. For God's sake.....how about a little credit where a lot is 
due. I cannot imagine that anyone has read, or will read this e

[[Page 27682]]

--mail, BUT....again, thanks that things ARE finally beginning 
to ``Open UP''...i.e........ENRON/Anderson, etal.
    I truly hope that this is just the beginning......Bill Gates/
Microsoft....NO problem...
    (Yes, I am a shareholder--50 shares!!!). Barbara Ann 
Wilcoxson



MTC-00025737

From: Charlotte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    I do not know how a company that has been found to be a 
monopoly, and a vicious one at that, can be dismissed with a 
settlement. I believe the behavior was criminal, and yet no criminal 
remedies have been pursued. I do not see how monetary punishments 
would bother this company, nor provide incentive to change.
    Perhaps they could be required to use the money to buy and 
distribute their competitors products well into the future. I 
believe that would bother them far more, and maybe enough to change.
    Sincerely,
    Charlotte Davis



MTC-00025738

From: Ilya Sandler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:21 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]



MTC-00025738-0001

    Dear Sirs:
    I am respectfully submitting the comments below in hope that the 
settlement conditions would be strengthened to more efficiently 
prevent Microsoft illegal behavior and encourage competition in 
software industry.
    I am a professional software engineer with a PhD degree in 
Physics. I have worked with both Microsoft and non Microsoft 
products. I am deeply concerned about destructive effect of 
Microsoft on competition in software industry. (The company I am 
working for is not in software industry and is not competing with 
Microsoft)
    Sincerely yours,
    Ilya Sandler
    [email protected]
    III.A. Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM ... because 
it is known to Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating:
    1. developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or 
licensing any software that competes with Microsoft Platform 
Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any 
Non-Microsoft Middleware;
    2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows 
Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or 
(b) will boot with more than one Operating System;
    The requirement should be expanded to cover any Microsoft 
business partners (not just OEMs). OEMs are not the only channel 
through which Microsoft can illegally protect and expand its 
monopoly. An example of non OEM partner would be America Online and 
Apple: by threatening to withhold some critical services from these 
companies Microsoft forced them to replace Netscape Navigator with 
Internet Explorer as a default browser. In ``item 1'' the 
phrase ``any Non Microsoft Middleware'' should be replaced 
with ``Any Non Microsoft Software'' and ``competes 
with Microsoft platform software'' should be replaced with 
``competes with any Microsoft software''.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to use its monopoly power to 
interfere with Non-middleware non-platform competition. Item 2 
should be expanded to include (c) will have no Microsoft operating 
system installed (either will have an alternative operating system 
or have no operating system at all, many computer users would prefer 
to do installation themselves)
    Obviously, without this addition Microsoft is free to retaliate 
against anyone who ships a Linux only PC (or a PC without Operating 
System).
    III B. Microsoft's provision of Windows Operating System 
Products to Covered OEMs shall be pursuant to uniform license 
agreements with uniform terms and conditions



MTC-00025738-0002

    There are two kinds of monopolistic behavior which this measure 
could prevent (a) using existing monopoly in one market to gain a 
monopoly in another market (b) use its monopolistic position to 
maintain artificially high retail prices (in particular, forcing 
unnecessary upgrades) (a typical scenario for (b) works like this: a 
few key partners are given the latest MSOffice product for a very 
low price, this latest product uses file formats different from 
formats of the previous product. So soon there are documents flying 
around in this latest format and the only way to read them is to 
upgrade existing MSOffice with upgrade costs in hundred of dollars 
per seat) Behavior (b) is possible only when there is no 
competition. In competitive market such a behavior is impossible 
(e.g. repair/service/most of spare part business of Toyota cars is 
not controlled by Toyota: Toyota has almost no pricing power over 
``post-sale'' service market) suggested modification 1:
    The proposed measure prevents behavior (a) but only partially. 
Operating Systems are not the only product where Microsoft can use 
threats of existing license termination as a way to push another 
product. For example, very few companies may afford to lose MsOffice 
licensing. Thus Microsoft should be required to uniformly license 
any product where Microsoft holds a dominant market position (the 
list of such software should be reviewed regularly and at present it 
definitely should include all of MS Office components (Word, Access, 
Excel, PowerPoint). suggested modification 2:
    The proposed measure does not address behavior (b) at all. So I 
propose that the uniform/non-discriminatory licensing covers ALL 
sales/licensing of specified products (not just sales to 
``Covered OEMs''). For example, if a covered OEM can buy 1 
million of Windows licenses for $5 millions then anyone (including 
resellers) should be able to buy 1 million licenses for the same 
price.
    This also means that Microsoft should not be able to require a 
buyer of its software to ship it with a new PC--software can be 
sold separately. (this should apply to the end user too) This 
modification greatly reduces Microsoft monopolistic pricing power. 
An important consequence of these modification (non-discriminatory 
licensing of specified Microsoft products to all with an explicit 
permission to resell) is that this would make sections III.A and 
III.F mostly redundant, as Microsoft will not be able to retaliate 
against anyone if everyone has non-discriminatory access to all 
critical Microsoft products.
    III.C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM 
licensee from exercising any of the following options or 
alternatives:''
    The words ``any OEM licensee'' should be replaced with 
``any licensee'' (including the ``end users'', 
see comments to III.A for rationale). The list of activities which 
any Microsoft licensee should be free to do, should be expanded to 
include (1) use any Microsoft product in the manner customer sees 
fit (e.g. run MsOffice under Wine Emulator on Linux operating 
system, Microsoft however should not have any obligation to support 
any non-standard environment)



MTC-00025738-0003

    (2) resell (with destruction of original copy if applicable/ any 
Microsoft product at any price
    (3) License, use, distribute, promote, develop, sell, support 
any non-Microsoft products in any lawful manner customer sees fit. 
Similar comments apply to sections III.F, III.G and III.H In 
general, my suggestion would be to avoid differentiating Microsoft 
users into many categories (IHV, ISV, OEM, ``Covered 
OEM'', ``end user'') and granting every category 
specific rights and instead grant uniform rights to all users. This 
would simplify both the judgment and its enforcement (as there would 
be fewer conflicts) >>>
    III.E.Starting nine months after the submission of this proposed 
Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall make available for use 
by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any 
Communications Protocol that is, on or after the date this Final 
Judgment is submitted to the Court,
    (i) implemented in a Windows Operating System Product installed 
on a client computer, and
    (ii) used to interoperate natively (i.e., without the addition 
of software code to the client operating system product) with a 
Microsoft server operating system product. <<<
    While this is a good measure, it is made nearly meaningless by 
the III.I section and III.J.2 exception. (See below for III.I and 
III.J.2 comments) Instead of subjecting disclosure to III.I section, 
disclosure of protocols information should be subject to 
``Interoperability Information disclosure'' suggestion 
below.
    Furthermore, the waiting period should be eliminated (the 
disclosure should begin immediately after the Final Judgment is 
accepted by the court).
    Suggested Interoperability information disclosure. (mostly 
supersedes III.I and III.J.2)

[[Page 27683]]

    No competition is possible in software unless a would-be 
competitor has enough information to interoperate with existing 
software and especially with Microsoft's. Thus conditions on which 
the interoperability information is disclosed are extremely 
important.
    The proposed final judgment essentially requires (in section 
III.I) a would be competitor to negotiate with Microsoft to gain 
access to interoperability information. This--allows Microsoft 
to greatly complicate a would be competitor's life--gives 
Microsoft an ample advance warning of a potential competitor and 
section III.F.2 gives Microsoft explicit power to allow/disallow 
competition in many (potentially, all) cases.
    Using the car analogy: to manufacture cars which can compete 
with and provide a drop-in replacement for Ford cars, one does not 
have to negotiate/enter into any kind of agreement with Ford. 
Similarly , software developers developing products competing with 
Microsoft's ones should not have to negotiate/enter into any kind of 
agreement with Microsoft, even more so, given Microsoft's history of 
antitrust law violations.
    So I suggest that all the information necessary to interoperate 
with (thus allowing development of viable alternatives for) 
Microsoft products should be as easily and widely accessible as 
possible.
    The only feasible way to ensure wide and easy access to this 
information would be to publish it on the web with the following 
conditions: (approximately in the order of importance)
    (1) it definitely should not require *any* kind of agreement (in 
particular, no mandatory registration) between the reader/
implementor and Microsoft (basically, anyone should be able to read 
it and implement a competing product it without ever talking to 
Microsoft)
    (2) access to it should be free.
    (3) Microsoft should also allow
    (a) mirror the documentation verbatim (clearly separated 
comments should be allowed)
    (b) translate it into other computer readable formats (e.g. from 
MSWord to HTML or to pdf)
    (c) translate it into other human languages (and publish the 
translation)
    This disclosure requirement should definitely apply to 
information mentioned in section III.D (API disclosure) and III.F 
(network protocol disclosure). It should further apply to File 
Format disclosure discussed below.. This disclosure requirement does 
not apply to any information which is not related to 
interoperability.(for instance if a MSWord utilizes a unique Spell 
Checker, Microsoft does not have to disclose how the Checker works) 
This requirement of free access to disclosed information has some 
obvious consequences:

--Microsoft would not be able to enforce any patents if may 
have on interoperability information (file formats, network 
protocols, APIs) (it still may hold and enforce patents on specific 
implementations of those interfaces)
--if disclosure of interoperability information requires 
disclosure some 3-rd party information, then Microsoft will have to 
either drop the product or change it so that 3rd party information 
is not needed or renegotiate with the 3rd party to allow information 
disclosure.
    The information disclosure procedure suggested above eliminates 
many potential conflicts between Microsoft and an information 
request or.
    I want to emphasize that having to enter into any kind of 
negotiation with Microsoft to even start developing a competing 
product is a major entrance barrier (and this barrier does not exist 
in most other industries!) and the only way to remove it is to grant 
a free and easy access to interoperability information as outlined 
above. >>>
    III.J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
    2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, 
Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy 
systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, 
authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual 
property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any 
person or entity on the requirement that the licensee:
    (a) has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy..
    (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 .... 
<<<
    While an obvious intention of this clause is to prevent piracy/
security breaches, such a prevention is not in any way related to 
this antitrust case. For instance, if a Windows Media Player can 
play certain content, Microsoft should provide enough information to 
implement a competing player with exactly same functionality.
    If the competing player provides some extra functionality, then 
whether or not such an extra functionality violates some other law 
(such as DMCA) should be a separate (and independent of Microsoft 
antitrust case) issue.
    Furthermore, ``authentication/authorization security'' 
is an extremely broad concept. For instance, Windows file sharing 
protocol includes some authentification as do many other protocols 
(including such wide spread ones as ftp and http which are used on 
the Internet), so these protocols seem to fall under III.J.2. Which 
makes section III.F (Network protocol disclosure) dependent on 
meeting III.J.2 requirements.
    Then it should be obvious that III.J.2(b, c, d) requirements 
give Microsoft enough freedom to never disclose anything (or 
disclose with a significant delay which is almost the same): 
consider these scenarios
    (1) a startup company will not meet (b) and (c)(business might 
not seem reasonable or viable)
    (2) R&D department of a large company may want to prototype 
something without specific plans for a specific product (if the 
prototype succeeds, then the product will go into planning) this 
will fail test (b)
    (3) Microsoft gets a convenient advance warning of any potential 
competition
    (4) requirement (d) allows to delay introduction of any 
competing product.
    (5) open source competition (such as Linux which Microsoft cites 
as THE threat both in and out of court) would not meet (b) and (c) 
requirements
    (6) Nearly any software feature can be recast as having 
something to do with security, anti-piracy, or authentification.
    In short, I believe, that section III.J.2 is not needed and in 
its current form it essentially negates any information disclosure 
requirements which exist in this judgment. Section III.J.2 should be 
dropped Disclosure of file formats.
    Microsoft should disclose its file formats: first and foremost 
for Microsoft Office applications (where Microsoft already has a 
dominant position and possibly *all* file formats used by any 
software sold by Microsoft. I want to emphasize that file format 
information is needed for competitors both to MSOffice products AND 
to Windows Operating System (such as Linux or Solaris)--no 
competing Operating system stands a chance on a desktop if there is 
no application for it which can read already existing documents in 
MSOffice format (and provider of a competing Operating System can 
not (and should not!) rely on Microsoft to port MSOffice to a 
competing operating system). Disclosure of file formats would 
significantly reduce artificial barriers for competitor entrance for 
both office and operating system markets.
    I worked as Director of Windows Products Engineering for Borland 
International (later to be known as Inprise) in 1997 and 199%. 
During that period, I was responsible for ``the Microsoft 
relationship'' and worked with Borland's attorneys on contracts 
and other matters with Microsoft. I was asked to contribute my 
thoughts about Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior during this 
time, and I wrote the following memo in April of 1998. Its primary 
message is that Microsoft has never been a proponent of innovation, 
nor a particularly keen innovator. The same can also be said of the 
other monopoly force in the PC industry, Intel. However, a big 
difference between the two has been Intel's strict observance of the 
law and Microsoft's attempts to circumvent the law. While I was at 
Borland, several times Microsoft proposed that we sign agreements 
that forced us to recommend and distribute Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer to our customers--we ALWAYS red-lined these parts of 
the agreements.
    The bottom line is that this probe could have gone further. 
Prior to Borland, I spent 11 years with Digital Equipment, now a 
part of Compaq. During that period, I was exposed to Microsoft's 
tactics in negotiating licensing of their operating system software 
to PC manufacturers. You've seen testimony of some PC vendors about 
this. Microsoft has been able to deliver flawed software to these 
manufacturers while dictating terms that

[[Page 27684]]

force the manufacturers to assume most of the technical support 
burden.
    The current remedy being proposed does not go far enough, 
particularly with a company that has made an art of working around 
the law. I was very disappointed that a structural remedy was not 
part of the solution, and I hope that the oversight of the proposed 
remedy is strict and vigilant.
    Thank you,
    Joe Falcone
    Half Moon Bay, California
    A few things that have gone wrong in the PC industry... PC's 
have never been high tech.
    The operating systems are years behind the times in features, 
scalability and robustness. As Microsoft tries to prove the 
enterprise-quality of their software, this has become obvious. No 
Microsoft software is ready for 7x24 operation. When Microsoft made 
their big pitch for the Enterprise, they committed themselves to run 
Microsoft on their own products--Windows NT Server, SQL Server, 
Back Office, etc. Word on the street is that Microsoft is too big to 
run themselves on their own products. The obvious solution is to go 
with the flow and put Oracle's DBMS in--but Oracle won't sell 
to Microsoft for competitive reasons. So this is one of the reasons 
why the rumor circulated that Microsoft was going to buy Informix 
(it still could happen). Although this would allegedly buy Microsoft 
an enterprise-class database engine, the classic Informix relational 
database product is old (it's been compared to Oracle 6--two 
generations behind Oracle's current product). Microsoft is between a 
rock and a hard place.
    Some number of Microsoft products are not Y2K safe (Year 2000). 
And any strong mention of this in public is suppressed--an 
academic who was collecting Y2K software problem reports on a web 
site was sent a ``cease and desist'' letter by Microsoft's 
legal department. Only Microsoft knows what is good for Microsoft. 
PC hardware is crude and primitive. I/O buses are slow, difficult to 
expand, and tricky to design for. For example, some first generation 
PCI option cards will not work with recent PCI motherboards. This is 
because the PCI spec was driven largely by Intel to fulfill their 
agenda. Alternative views are co-opted-- Digital's PCI bus 
committee rep was hired away by Intel early in the program.
    The only time Intel had the world's fastest microprocessor was 
when they had the world's first and only microprocessor. Once other 
vendors entered the game, the mediocrity of Intel's architectures 
came to the forefront. The fact is that Intel is a relative newcomer 
to the computer architecture field. IBM, UNISYS, Digital and others 
have been designing computers since the 50s. With that experience 
comes a level of maturity and a portfolio of patents that make it 
difficult for others to achieve ``best-in-class'' 
performance. Today, nearly every RISC architecture in production 
(Alpha, HP-PA, PowerPC, MIPS, SPARC), is faster than the 
fastest Pentium-II. Now that AMD, National Semiconductor, and IDT 
have foundry agreements with IBM, all of them may get access to the 
high-speed copper interconnect chip process which IBM innovated and 
may have a substantial lead in due to its own intellectual property. 
In other words, within a year or so, Intel may not be making the 
fastest x86 processor.
    Microsoft and Intel have tried to restrict what the PC 
manufacturers can build thru acquisitions, intellectual property 
(patents), and their PC 9x initiatives. However, these are 
principally driven by Microsoft and Intel to fulfill their agenda. 
The original reason to have these initiatives was to try to 
guarantee for Microsoft that the manufacturers were sticking to a 
single spec of base PC functionality for their products, rather than 
have them go off and implementing new buses, graphics, etc. Of 
course, the result is an industry with no innovation and no variety. 
All the products are the same. The original objective was to enforce 
PC 9x compliance by withholding logo branding (Intel Inside or 
Designed for Windows xx) if the product did not meet PC 9x. It's not 
clear to what degree they've been able to do that.
    The latest incarnation of the initiative is PC 99. Adaptec is a 
participant in PC 99. Aparently Microsoft in one of their playing 
god moods decided to remove SCSI hard disks as a supported 
technology in PC 99. The idea was to replace it with IEEE 1394. The 
Adaptec folks had to point out that there are virtually no disk 
drive products available using 1394 as an interface.
    Earlier versions of PC 9x made no mention of mobile systems. 
Even the current mobile systems spec of PC 99 is considered grossly 
inadequate to the point that a consortium of notebook manufacturers 
(as reported recently) is banding together to form their own 
standards group.
    Now Intel is using their intellectual property (primarily 
patents on the Pentium-II interface bus) to restrict who can build 
chipsets for PCs. Right now, you can really only buy Pentium-II 
chipsets from Intel. Intel has threatened to sue other companies who 
enter this field. Traditionally, the pinout of a non- military-
classified chip sold on the open market has been a public spec. If 
you think about it, where would the computer industry be today if 
you could BUY a chip on the open market, but you couldn't INTERFACE 
it to anything without a LICENSE from the chip manufacturer. This, 
in fact, was the problem with the IBM MicroChannel bus. You could 
build MicroChannel option cards, but you needed to register them 
with IBM and get an ID for your card (for autoconfiguration) before 
you sold it. MicroChannel failed as a result, even though it had 
PCI-class technology years ago (the PCI connector is in fact a 
MicroChannel-style connector).
    Intel's argument is that they are no longer selling 
``chips'' as such, but computer system modules for a 
patented, proprietary bus (Slot 1 et al). For this there is 
precedent of course. All of the big computer manufacturers used 
proprietary buses, for which you generally had to get licenses to 
build peripherals for. The problem is the tradition and vitality of 
the PC industry was built around technology that was not under 
intellectual property restrictions. Now you can only buy chipsets 
from Intel. The chipsets effectively determine the basic features of 
the PC, including power management in the case of notebooks. As 
noted earlier, the notebook manufacturers are already blanching at 
the thought of having their features, such as power management, 
determined solely by what Intel's Pentium-II mobile chipsets 
deliver.
    As Intel's standards (Slot 1, PCI, AGP, I20) become established, 
it becomes easy for Intel to dominate each segment, either solely or 
collusively with another vendor, such as the case with the 
intelligent I20 I/O bus and Wind River Systems. When you purchase 
the i960 RP processor (the heart of the I20 spec), you get the 
IxWorks I20-compatible Real Time Operating System by Wind River 
Systems (License included with processor). This event sent 
shockwaves thru the Real-Time Operating System industry as it would 
guarantee a stream of revenue for Wind River once I20-enabled 
systems began shipping in volume.
    As Microsoft's initiatives have spread into other areas, such as 
palmtop computing, we see the same control. In the Windows CE area, 
the hardware specification is controlled by Microsoft. Manufacturers 
build to the Microsoft spec and Microsoft delivers executable code 
to the manufacturers. No source is available and Microsoft develops 
all the drivers. Is it any wonder that all CE products look the 
same? The only concession that Microsoft has granted has been the 
support of different microprocessors, insisted upon by the 
aggressively competitive Japanese contenders in the high-MIPS-per-
milliwatt category. Everyone in the CE space is losing money, 
everyone except for Microsoft who is apparently charging more for CE 
than for Windows 95, basing this on the fact that they've 
architected the entire product, etc, etc. In fact, what Microsoft 
has done is architect the innovation OUT of the product by 
controlling it too strictly and not allowing their partners to 
innovate.
    Their goal is to be the mobile communication and computing 
platform of choice when we get to the point of convergence between 
palmtops, notebooks, wireless networks, and cell phones--a sort 
of Pilot on steroids. The most interesting competition going on 
right now is that between CE and the Pilot, especially now that IBM 
is backing and reselling the Pilot. Unlike the past, it is clear 
that anti-competitive actions by Microsoft in that market will not 
go unnoticed. All of this information is publicly verifiable by 
hitting the right web sites with the right search keywords. Even the 
rumors have been reported in one place or another. Just haven't seen 
anyone put the whole picture together. Enjoy!



MTC-00025739

From: Steve(u)Lieberman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Please do not allow the AOL lawsuit to derail the important and 
appropriate settlement between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice. For the good of this country and the economy, I urge you to 
ratify the present settlement between MS, the DOJ and the nine 
attorneys general.
    Steve Lieberman

[[Page 27685]]

    Oceanside, CA



MTC-00025740

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Tamela Forbes
    12812 Sierra Creek Rd.
    Victorville, CA 92392



MTC-00025741

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:28am
Subject: (no subject)
    Although I am not entirely on one specific topic that has been 
directly addressed by the battles against Microsoft I feel that I 
should point out some major problems I have been experiencing with 
the company's policies and software lately.
    To start off, I should point out that I do use Microsoft windows 
ME as an operating system so I can't say that I am unwilling to use 
some of their products but I do find some problems with them. I 
enjoy using opera as my web browser rather than Internet explorer 
because it has more features and runs faster and therefore I have 
chosen to use it. This may seem like an arbitrary statement but it 
is not because I do not wish to use Internet explorer at all. This 
is simply not a possibility when using windows as an operating 
system and I feel that this ``feature'' of windows not 
only hurts smaller software companies such as opera or Netscape, 
which I have also used in the past, but it also detracts from what I 
as a user and consumer want to experience. If a product does not 
function to par then the consumer or user, whatever the case may be, 
should be allowed to choose an alternate source. It is true that 
internet explorer is a free product and some may even argue that it 
is part of the operating system, but so is windows media player and 
I am not forced to use that program when I find another program to 
take it's place. Every time I open a window I must use Internet 
explorer. Another problem I have encountered while using opera is 
that sites that use a MSN passport do not fully support this 
browser. This would seem opera's fault if it were not that these are 
the only sites that I have encountered that have this problem. 
Microsoft is purposefully designing web pages that adhere only to 
their software. I for one do not find this fair business at all.



MTC-00025742

From: Joe Falcone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I worked as Director of Windows Products Engineering for Borland 
International (later to be known as Inprise) in 1997 and 1998. 
During that period, I was responsible for ``the Microsoft 
relationship'' and worked with Borland's attorneys on contracts 
and other matters with Microsoft. I was asked to contribute my 
thoughts about Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior during this 
time, and I wrote the following memo in April of 1998. Its primary 
message is that Microsoft has never been a proponent of innovation, 
nor a particularly keen innovator. The same can also be said of the 
other monopoly force in the PC industry, Intel. However, a big 
difference between the two has been Intel's strict observance of the 
law and Microsoft's attempts to circumvent the law. While I was at 
Borland, several times Microsoft proposed that we sign agreements 
that forced us to recommend and distribute Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer to our customers--we ALWAYS red-lined these parts of 
the agreements.
    The bottom line is that this probe could have gone further. 
Prior to Borland, I spent 11 years with Digital Equipment, now a 
part of Compaq. During that period, I was exposed to Microsoft's 
tactics in negotiating licensing of their operating system software 
to PC manufacturers. You've seen testimony of some PC vendors about 
this. Microsoft has been able to deliver flawed software to these 
manufacturers while dictating terms that force the manufacturers to 
assume most of the technical support burden.
    The current remedy being proposed does not go far enough, 
particularly with a company that has made an art of working around 
the law. I was very disappointed that a structural remedy was not 
part of the solution, and I hope that the oversight of the proposed 
remedy is strict and vigilant.
    Thank you,
    Joe Falcone
    Half Moon Bay, California
    A few things that have gone wrong in the PC industry... PC's 
have never been high tech.
    The operating systems are years behind the times in features, 
scalability and robustness. As Microsoft tries to prove the 
enterprise-quality of their software, this has become obvious. No 
Microsoft software is ready for 7x24 operation. When Microsoft made 
their big pitch for the Enterprise, they committed themselves to run 
Microsoft on their own products--Windows NT Server, SQL Server, 
Back Office, etc. Word on the street is that Microsoft is too big to 
run themselves on their own products. The obvious solution is to go 
with the flow and put Oracle's DBMS in--but Oracle won't sell 
to Microsoft for competitive reasons. So this is one of the reasons 
why the rumor circulated that Microsoft was going to buy Informix 
(it still could happen). Although this would allegedly buy Microsoft 
an enterprise-class database engine, the classic Informix relational 
database product is old (it's been compared to Oracle 6--two 
generations behind Oracle's current product). Microsoft is between a 
rock and a hard place.
    Some number of Microsoft products are not Y2K safe (Year 2000). 
And any strong mention of this in public is suppressed--an 
academic who was collecting Y2K software problem reports on a web 
site was sent a ``cease and desist'' letter by Microsoft's 
legal department. Only Microsoft knows what is good for Microsoft. 
PC hardware is crude and primitive. I/O buses are slow, difficult to 
expand, and tricky to design for. For example, some first generation 
PCI option cards will not work with recent PCI motherboards. This is 
because the PCI spec was driven largely by Intel to fulfill their 
agenda. Alternative views are co-opted-- Digitat's PCI bus 
committee rep was hired away by Intel early in the program. The only 
time Intel had the world's fastest microprocessor was when they had 
the world's first and only microprocessor. Once other vendors 
entered the game, the mediocrity of Intel's architectures came to 
the forefront. The fact is that Intel is a relative newcomer to the 
computer architecture field. IBM, UNISYS, Digital and others have 
been designing computers since the 50s. With that experience comes a 
level of maturity and a portfolio of patents that make it difficult 
for others to achieve ``best-in-class'' performance. 
Today, nearly every RISC architecture in production (Alpha, HP-PA, 
PowerPC, MIPS, SPARC), is faster than the fastest Pentium-II. Now 
that AMD, National Semiconductor, and IDT have foundry agreements 
with IBM, all of them may get access to the high-speed copper 
interconnect chip process which IBM innovated and may have a 
substantial lead in due to its own intellectual property. In other 
words, within a year or so, Intel may not be making the fastest x86 
processor.
    Microsoft and Intel have tried to restrict what the PC 
manufacturers can build thru acquisitions, intellectual property 
(patents), and their PC 9x initiatives. However, these are 
principally driven by Microsoft and Intel to fulfill their agenda. 
The original reason to have these initiatives was to try to 
guarantee for Microsoft that the manufacturers were sticking to a 
single spec of base PC functionality for their products, rather than 
have them go off and implementing new buses, graphics, etc. Of 
course, the result is an industry with no innovation and no variety. 
All the products are the same. The original objective was to enforce 
PC 9x compliance by withholding logo branding (Intel Inside or 
Designed for Windows xx) if the product did not meet PC 9x. It's not 
clear to what degree they've been able to do that.
    The latest incarnation of the initiative is PC 99. Adaptec is a 
participant in PC 99. Aparently Microsoft in one of their playing 
god moods decided to remove SCSI hard disks as a supported 
technology in PC 99. The idea was to replace it with IEEE 1394. The 
Adaptec folks had to point out that there

[[Page 27686]]

are virtually no disk drive products available using 1394 as an 
interface. Earlier versions of PC 9x made no mention of mobile 
systems. Even the current mobile systems spec of PC 99 is considered 
grossly inadequate to the point that a consortium of notebook 
manufacturers (as reported recently) is banding together to form 
their own standards group.
    Now Intel is using their intellectual property (primarily 
patents on the Pentium- II interface bus) to restrict who can build 
chipsets for PCs. Right now, you can really only buy Pentium-II 
chipsets from Intel. Intel has threatened to sue other companies who 
enter this field. Traditionally, the pinout of a non- military-
classified chip sold on the open market has been a public spec. If 
you think about it, where would the computer industry be today if 
you could BUY a chip on the open market, but you couldn't INTERFACE 
it to anything without a LICENSE from the chip manufacturer. This, 
in fact, was the problem with the IBM MicroChannel bus. You could 
build MicroChannel option cards, but you needed to register them 
with IBM and get an ID for your card (for autoconfiguration) before 
you sold it. MicroChannel failed as a result, even though it had 
PCI-class technology years ago (the PCI connector is in fact a 
MicroChannel-style connector).
    Intel's argument is that they are no longer selling 
``chips'' as such, but computer system modules for a 
patented, proprietary bus (Slot 1 et al). For this there is 
precedent of course. All of the big computer manufacturers used 
proprietary buses, for which you generally had to get licenses to 
build peripherals for. The problem is the tradition and vitality of 
the PC industry was built around technology that was not under 
intellectual property restrictions. Now you can only buy chipsets 
from Intel. The chipsets effectively determine the basic features of 
the PC, including power management in the case of notebooks. As 
noted earlier, the notebook manufacturers are already blanching at 
the thought of having their features, such as power management, 
determined solely by what Intel's Pentium-II mobile chipsets 
deliver.
    As Intel's standards (Slot 1, PCI, AGP, I20) become established, 
it becomes easy for Intel to dominate each segment, either solely or 
collusively with another vendor, such as the case with the 
intelligent I20 I/O bus and Wind River Systems. When you purchase 
the i960 RP processor (the heart of the I20 spec), you get the 
IxWorks I20-compatible Real Time Operating System by Wind River 
Systems (License included with processor). This event sent 
shockwaves thru the Real-Time Operating System industry as it would 
guarantee a stream of revenue for Wind River once I20-enabled 
systems began shipping in volume.
    As Microsoft's initiatives have spread into other areas, such as 
palmtop computing, we see the same control. In the Windows CE area, 
the hardware specification is controlled by Microsoft. Manufacturers 
build to the Microsoft spec and Microsoft delivers executable code 
to the manufacturers. No source is available and Microsoft develops 
all the drivers. Is it any wonder that all CE products look the 
same? The only concession that Microsoft has granted has been the 
support of different microprocessors, insisted upon by the 
aggressively competitive Japanese contenders in the high-MIPS-per-
milliwatt category. Everyone in the CE space is losing money, 
everyone except for Microsoft who is apparently charging more for CE 
than for Windows 95, basing this on the fact that they've 
architected the entire product, etc, etc. In fact, what Microsoft 
has done is architect the innovation OUT of the product by 
controlling it too strictly and not allowing their partners to 
innovate.
    Their goal is to be the mobile communication and computing 
platform of choice when we get to the point of convergence between 
palmtops, notebooks, wireless networks, and cell phones--a sort 
of Pilot on steroids. The most interesting competition going on 
right now is that between CE and the Pilot, especially now that IBM 
is backing and reselling the Pilot. Unlike the past, it is clear 
that anti-competitive actions by Microsoft in that market will not 
go unnoticed. All of this information is publicly verifiable by 
hitting the right web sites with the right search keywords. Even the 
rumors have been reported in one place or another. Just haven't seen 
anyone put the whole picture together. Enjoy!



MTC-00025743

From: Duane Diesing
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 1:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Duane Diesing
PSC Box 6098
Goodfellow AFB, TX 76908
January 26, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Duane Diesing



MTC-00025744

From: taojones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:31am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Letting them use equipment or software to increase market share 
in education would be a big mistake let them cough up the cash and 
let the beneficiary of the settlement decide where it is best spent. 
Unfortunately being second rate on quality is not a crime but is 
against the American sprit. Teach them a real lesson and make them 
reveal source code so that people can undo what they want to tweak 
themselves if you want to put a holly carburetor on your ford 
minivan ford has no right to stop you... once you pay for it its 
your car.Once you fork over your fee you deserve to see what you 
have bought. Developers have a right to information so they can 
improve things rather than catching the (security hole) horse out 
the gate
    William Pellegrini
    48 Oakcrest Drive
    South Huntington
    Ny 11746



MTC-00025745

From: steve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has not risen to where it is today by innovation or 
product quality, but by purloining others technologies into their 
fundamentally faulty suite of products.
    By virtue of simply being in the right place at the right time 
some 20 years ago, they aquired a toe hold that then became a foot 
hold in a new and burgeoning industry.
    As this foot hold grew, it came to be able to at first just kick 
its way around, but then learned it could walk all over anyone it 
chose at anytime it choose. Just because it could didn't mean it had 
to, but it did. At almost every opportunity. Thus they in effect 
became the sole arbiter of what products would survive and what ones 
languished in this new industry. Were the ``Standard'' 
they purport to represent a legitimate one based on performance that 
would be one thing, but it isn't. When MS released Windows-XP 
recently they touted it as the ``Most mature and secure OS 
they'd ever made!''. While that may be true, in terms of the 
rest of the world it was anything but secure.
    Within a few weeks of its release, severe security issues were 
found by several independent parties. Severe enough that for the 
first time in its history, the FBI called its own news-conference to 
announce the dangers they conveyed.
    Furthermore, when Microsoft tried to post the fixes XP required 
to their own site recently, they crashed it, taking it offline for 
over 5 days. While the irony of the ``Most advanced and secure 
OS!'' requiring a ``fix'' just 2-3 weeks post-
release that when applied created a new, bigger and and even more 
obvious problem is not to be missed. It is a demonstration of the 
low level of fundamental quality inherit in their software.
    This not a unique example, only the most recent (and perhaps 
most telling). The

[[Page 27687]]

U.S.Army, Navy, and FBI have, along with many other .gov sites, 
dispensed with their Windows based servers as they tired of being 
hacked so readily.
    MICROSOFT IS/HAS/BEEN/ALWAYS WILL BE: Pervasively aggressive in 
all areas of its endeavors. It has copied even its core functional 
approach and appearence from outside sources (while stifiling most 
competing efforts regardless of their actual merit). No amount of 
money can compensate for the loss of the dynamic society could have 
had if innovation in a broad field of players had been allowed. If 
free-market values and innovation had been at play instead of a 
singularly self-centered corporate one, this issue would represent 
less today than it does. Any judgment or penalty against MS should 
go to developing other sources/venues of hardware/software 
innovation etc. that DON'T depend on Microsoft products to function. 
Otherwise, the penalty actually create's more need for the already 
intrusive offender.
    Thanks for your time.
    This is important, please do the right thing.



MTC-00025746

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With all the problems this country is having it should be top 
priority for our government to settle all the Microsoft law suits. 
The future must have technology working at its best or the terrorist 
could over come. We must protect free enterprise which is the root 
of our system. PLEASE vote to settle the Microsoft Law Suits.
    Thank you Jerry Robinson



MTC-00025747

From: Alfie Costa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Microsoft Settlement should not allow what it does 
allow. It is like a muzzle that hasn't been fastened.
    Some say that Microsoft has, by various direct and indirect 
means, purchased this ominously favorable outcome. Supposing this 
cynical opinion were true, then those who have done the selling 
should reconsider, if only out of delayed self-interest. The reason 
being that if they ``look the other way'' today, (in so 
manifest an instance of duty), their reputation as guardians of the 
public interest will diminish tomorrow, so that their services would 
very probably be seen as hardly necessary. Any office whose duty 
evaporates, and devolves into a meek sinecure, can't expect much in 
the way of future emoluments.



MTC-00025748

From: BobNordan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is guilty of the worst case on monopoly in history. 
The company should be punished harsely and should be broken up into 
two companies, one for operating systems and the other applications. 
Fines should be high enough to make sure Microsoft can't afford to 
break the law again. If they are not stopped now, there will be no 
stopping them in the future.
    Robert Nordan Jr



MTC-00025749

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement pI believe the Microsoft Settlement is 
not going to solve any problems or antitrust issues.
    I feel stiffer penalties need to be enforced on this company. 
Microsoft should not be allowed to make there browser the default 
browser for the OS.
    They abused their position dealing with Netscape and therefore 
should lose their privilege of forcing manufacturers to except IE as 
the default browser. I also feel they should compensate ex-Netscape 
employees for ruining their business model. Microsoft does stand in 
the way of free market enterprise and actions need to be taken.
    Brian
    CA, USA



MTC-00025750

From: Dr. Giorgio G. A. Miceli, Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement pHello:
    Something has to be done about these crybabies... a.k.a. AOL and 
Netscape. Microsoft is making their product better and better... AOL 
and Netscape are way behind.
    Don't let these crybabies ruin a company that doing their best 
in innovation.



MTC-00025751

From: Jim Miranto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough with this already. Stop wasting my tax dollars on this 
trivial stuff.
    Spend it on getting our county back on it's feet and safe from 
terrorists.
    James A. Miranto, MCSE
    Information Technology Consultant
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00025752

From: Matthew Reed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The United States Government has an excellent opportunity to 
encourage competition and help the consumer. The proposed settlement 
does not fulfill this end. Microsoft should be punished to the 
degree of their crime.



MTC-00025753

From: Bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice.
Reference: Microsoft Settlement.
    Consumer interests have been well served, and the time to end 
this costly and damaging litigation has come. Dragging this legal 
battle further will only benefit a few wealthy competitors, lawyers, 
and special interest Big-Wigs. This is ridicules to continue any 
kind of litigation unless you are anti consumer. Not one new product 
will be brought to the marketplace, so what's the point???
    Respectfully
    A Senior Consumer
    Robert E Hahn
    POBox 899
    Buena Vista, CO. 81211



MTC-00025754

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:50am
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,
    Martin Barcelona
    6642 Lamb Road
    New Orleans, LA 70126



MTC-00025755

From: D.Carrico
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a monopoly. You do not need 100% of the market to 
be a monopoly.
    1. Open source *ALL* of the ``Internet Explorer'' web 
browser program code.
    2. Make them develope a version of ``Internet 
Explorer'' and MS Office for Linux.
    3. Tell them under *NO* circumstances, can they collect *private 
information* from there customers using there operating system or 
applications.
    4. All of there current and future protocols must be *approved* 
by a open standards organizations.
    5. Fine them 25 to 50 percent of there *NET* profit. That will 
help the national debt.
    Thank you for your time and help in this matter.
    Donald Carrico Jr.



MTC-00025756

From: Ian Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am not involved in the computer industry. I am an ordinary 
cititzen and end-user of computer software and just wanted to

[[Page 27688]]

take a moment to voice my strong objection to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement.
    It takes only a very basic understanding of Microsoft's history 
to understand that they have succeeded not through innovation but 
through aggressive and anti-competitive business practices. From the 
very beginning, in the mid 70s when Bill Gates purchased MS-DOS from 
a small software company in Seattle and made billions reselling 
something that cost him about $50,000, to the open aping of Apple's 
Macintosh operating system in Windows and all subsequent OS 
releases, Bill Gates has been a copycat, a thief maybe, but not an 
innovator. Every single product they have ever released has been 
``inspired'' by something that came before.
    The operating system monopoly that Microsoft enjoys has given 
them the leverage to thwart upstart competitors. We all know and 
acknowledge this. The proposed slap on the wrist makes it apparent 
that antitrust laws have no teeth. Without a punishment that fits 
the crime, there is no disincentive for other companies now and in 
the future to avoid running afoul of antitrust laws.
    I resent the millions of taxpayer dollars spent over many years 
in an effort that apparently will result in a conclusion that 
antitrust laws were violated but that it's OK to let Microsoft off 
easy, once again. Those who believe in the free market as an 
absolute have no understanding of American history and no 
appreciation for the need for antitrust laws in our highly 
successful form of capitalism.
    sincerely,
    Ian Russell Johnson
    Corvallis, Oregon



MTC-00025757

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:00am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I feel it's time the government take a stand against the bilking 
of Microsoft. Please get involved and end this persecution of a 
company because others can't get their stuff together.
    Darlene Dwyer
    Everett, WA 98208



MTC-00025758

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has used their monopoly powers time and time again to 
strangle innovation, it is time for that to be put to a stop.



MTC-00025759

From: Laura Stephenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:08am
Subject: Re: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I greatly appreciate Microsoft ability to innovatively create 
sofware projects which assists the consumer in not only their word 
processing needs, but also in the area of the internet. Yes, there 
are links between Microsoft and other companies. And true, Microsoft 
in the largest computer company and the other have not been 
competing as well. My personal opinion is that the man behind the 
company is the key. If it weren't for Bill Gates innovative approach 
to life as well as business, consumers would not buy his company's 
products. Because Microsoft is simply the best in their area of 
expertise, they are being punished. Why punish such a terrific 
company who has simply figured out the key to good business?---
working with other to make the best and the most efficient products 
and services on the market. As a teacher, I want to be the best 
teacher for my students every day all of the time. Other teachers 
may become jealous because I am rewarded for my diligence and 
excellence in the service I provide to our children.
    Therefore, I get punished because they can't stand to see 
someone else half their age do a better and more efficient job than 
them. In theory, this analogy paints the true picture of what has 
happend to Microsoft. Other companies are simply jealous of the 
tremendous network that Microsoft has created and wish that they had 
done it themselves. They are in it for the money like any other 
business here on earth!!! What a great ability to meet the needs of 
their consumer while also doing what they feel called to do!!! 
Creation of new ideas is often rejected in our society, especially 
if it goes against the grain of our pocketbook. Another example 
would be the change from fuel-run vehicles to electric car which are 
more efficient and more environment friendly.
    Anyone who can say that what Microsoft has done is wrong is a 
hypocrite because no one can truly say that working with others in 
the business world to create the most efficient and effective 
products and services is bad. Microsoft simply and intelligently 
thought of it first!!!
    Thank You for keeping Microsoft a leading company in this game 
that we call computer life!!! May the Lord be with you are you make 
this historical decision that could positively or negatively affect 
millions of consumers nationwide!!!
    In His Name,
    Laura Stephenson
    2412 Pleasant Rose Cr.
    Bryan, Texas 77808
    (979)731-1217



MTC-00025760

From: Colin Kinlund
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to express my dismay at the inadequacy of the 
current proposed settlement against Microsoft. It provides neither 
concise so-called ``punishments'' nor methods of 
enforcement and control; Microsoft has repeatedly shown itself to be 
incapable of independently conducting fair and legal business.
    This distinct lack of self-control is exemplified by their 
continued and blatant monopolistic practices even in recent months, 
such as their intentionally poor encoding of MP3 files in Windows 
XP, making their included Windows Media Audio the better choice in 
quality by default, and leaving the average consumer with no choice 
but to use Microsoft's new ``standard.''
    Microsoft has shown no change in its approach to business since 
it was found to be a monopoly 6 years ago, and the current Final 
Settlement allows Microsoft to continue its illegal practices with 
virtually the same degree of anti-competitive behavior as before. It 
is a poorly worded document riddled with loopholes and incomplete 
statements, and it does nothing to truly address the nature of 
Microsoft.
    I do not support this settlement in its current form. I also 
urge you to read Mr. Dan Kegel's proposed revisions to the 
settlement at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Colin Kinlund
    Bristol, Vermont



MTC-00025761

From: Tim Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a farce. These people are 
guilty of arrogant and willful acts of disregard for the law, and 
they should be punished, not rewarded.
    I am ashamed of our legal system for their lack of integrity in 
even considering this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Tim J. Thomas
    Editor, Mouse Droppings and The Communiqui
    Board member, The Alaska Apple User Group



MTC-00025762

From: Eddie Fourie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough!
    No-one asked me as a consumer whether I was hurt or not by 
Microsoft's innovation. As a programmer and a technologist myself, I 
have given up some of their competitor's tools and decided to use 
Microsoft's platforms, operating systems and products as choice.
    Our company makes a living from products Microsoft creates and 
sells, and it's absurd for people who are non-technical to make 
decisions of this magnitude.
    I therefore urge you stop this crazy lawsuit and get to 
settlement as soon as possible, as your actions and or lack of 
affects our business, but not only ours, but hundreds of thousands 
of other small business out there.
    Regards
    Eduard Fourie



MTC-00025763

From: Marc S Weintraub
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00025763-0001

    Dear Sir,
    In accord with the Tunney Act, I am submitting my comments on 
the Proposed Final Judgement in the Microsoft proceedings

[[Page 27689]]

(commonly known by the somewhat inaccurate description: ``DOJ 
vs Microsoft'').
    There are many reasons why I find fault with the proposed 
settlement. In order to keep this comment brief, I will focus my 
comments on one specific are that I believe has not received a great 
deal of commentary from the public. I am very concerned about the 
faulty definitions and their implications, there are numerous 
examples of alterations to definitions found in the Findings of Fact 
as they have been ``reproduced'' in the PFJ. For example:
    Definition A--``API''
    The FOF defines ``API'' as ``the interfaced 
between application programs and the operating system.'' The 
PFJ has altered it to mean only ``the interfaces between 
Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Window, excluding Windows APIs 
used by other application programs.'' The PFJ's definition of 
API permits Microsoft to omit important APIs that are crucial to 
Independent Software Vendors'' ability to write software that 
integrates with Windows to the same extent to which competing 
Microsoft products are able to do so.
    Definition J--``Microsoft Middleware'' The FOF 
defines ``middleware'' as ``application software that 
itself presents a set of APIs which allow users to write new 
applications without reference to the underlying operating 
system.'' The PFJ destroys the intent and spirit of that 
definition by making it possible for Microsoft to avoid compliance 
simply by altering the form of version enumeration or the method of 
distribution of the products it miserly lists as 
``middleware.'' The PFJ leaves so many holes open to 
Microsoft as to make the concept of ``middleware'' a moot 
point in terms of measuring Microsoft's adherence to the PFJ's 
rememdies. That is simply wrong and must not be permitted.
    Definition K--``Microsoft Middleware Product''
    The PFJ restricts the list of products to Internet Explorer, 
Microsoft Java, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger and Outlook 
Express. It deliberately omits the obvious selections of Microsoft 
.NET, C#, Outlook and Office. There are, no doubt, other 
products that fit the proper definition of ``middleware'' 
and should be included as well. In fact, ideally, there should not 
be a list of what DOES apply, rather there should be a list of what 
DOES NOT. The fact is that no one at Microsoft is going to willingly 
include every product that should be a member of the list unless 
forced to do so. By changing the rules of defining the term 
``middleware'' such that everything is included except 
that which is explicitly excluded, Microsoft will be forced to 
realistically explain the VALID reasons why any product should be 
added to the exclusion list. Only then can there be a reasonable 
expectation that essential APIs MIGHT become available to ISVs.
    Definition U--``Windows Operating System 
Product''
    The PFJ makes unreasonable assumptions about what constitutes a 
Windows Operating System product. It specifically restricts the 
definition to ``only Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP 
Home, Windows XP Professional and their successors.'' What 
about existing Windows products such as Windows CE? What about the 
XBox which Microsoft clearly states runs an embedded version of 
Windows XP? Does ``embedded'' mean it is not 
``Home'' and it is not ``Professional'' and 
therefore it ``does not count?'' What about the Tablet PC 
featuring Windows XP Tabled PC Edition? I do not see the words 
``Home'' or ``Professional'' in that name, does 
it count? I am certain that my and the ISV industry's answer to each 
``does it count'' question is a resounding YES, however I 
am equally certain that Microsoft's is a resounding NO.
    As the PFJ definition currently reads, 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 Fdition.



MTC-00025763-0002

01/31/2002 6:37 PM
    Windows CE, Pocket PC, X-Box or some other Microsoft Operating 
System that can execute Windows applications. That is simply wrong 
and must not be permitted. True competition cannot be ensured due to 
the faulty definitions included in the PFJ. The unwarranted 
restrictions and syntactic gymnastics employed ensure that Microsoft 
can evade the purpose behind the action taken by the DOJ and several 
State's AGs. The purpose should be clear to everyone, it is to 
ensure that Microsoft ceases and desists from i anti-competitive 
practic
    How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications Barrier to 
Entry?
    The PFJ tries to erode the Applications Barrier to Entry in two 
ways:
    By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who 
support or develop alternatives to Windows. By taking various 
measures to ensure that Windows allows the use of non-Microsoft 
middleware. A third option not provided by the PFJ would be to make 
sure that Microsoft raises no artificial barriers against non-
Microsoft operating systems which implement the APIs needed to run 
application programs written for Windows. The Findings of Fact (52) 
considered the possibility that competing operating systems could 
implement the Windows APIs and thereby directly run software written 
for Windows as a way of circumventing the Applications Barrier to 
Entry. This is in fact the route being taken by the Linux operating 
system, which includes middleware (named WINE) that can run many 
Windows programs.
    By not providing some aid for ISVs engaged in making Windows-
compatible operating systems, the PFJ is missing a key opportunity 
to encourage competition in the Intel-compatible operating system 
market. Worse yet, the PFJ itself, in sections III.D. and III.E., 
restricts information released by those sections to be used 
``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product''. This prohibits ISVs from using the 
information for the purpose of writing operating systems that 
interoperate with Windows programs.



MTC-00025764

From: Del Ivey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:13am
Subject: Microsoft law suit
    Dear Mr. Attorney General,
    I am writing you to urge you to put an end to the seemingly 
endless litigation and appeals and new suits brought by the less-
than-tenuous attorneys under your jurisdiction. I have been a stock 
holder and user of Microsoft products for more than fifteen years 
and find the products more than adequate and very reasonably priced 
in the market place. I believe what has been accomplished to date in 
the litigation is more than adequate to restrain Microsoft and allow 
all the oversight necessary.
    Please end this senseless wrangling and get on to more important 
matters ; such as off shore partnerships of off-balance sheet SPE of 
you know who.
    Yours truly,
    Delbert G. Ivey
    [email protected]



MTC-00025765

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This ``settlement'' does nothing to stop Microsoft 
from continuing to abuse its monopoly power, nor does it provide any 
remedies for past abuses.



MTC-00025766

From: Walter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. James,
    The ``settlement'' you folks have worked out with 
Microsoft does not address any of the core monopolization violations 
affirmed by the Court of Appeals (unanimously) in June of last year.
    Your settlement is so far outside the mainstream of antitrust 
law and so completely contradicts the Court of Appeals decision that 
the only explanation is that you are getting political pressure from 
Microsoft beneficiaries in the government to cave in.
    Microsoft will now go breezily back to its heavy handed 
practices of pushing out competition. Don't you realize that it is 
small business that fuels the economy? With your settlement, we 
might as well give the entire country to Microsoft.
    Disgustedly,
    Diane Walter
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025767

From: kang xu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:22am
Subject: Re: My comment on Microsoft case
    Dear Sir:
    Attached please find a letter which expresses my opinion on the 
antitrust case with Microsoft.
    Thanks.
    Sincerely,
    Kang
    Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://
mobile.msn.com
    CC:
    [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 27690]]



MTC-00025767-0001

Kang Xu and Ying Zhang
10521 Polk Square Court
North Potomac, MD 20878
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to give you my thoughts on the Microsoft antitrust 
case. I support the reasonable settlement that was reached and 
oppose further litigation. It can only benefit consumers if this 
case were to come to an end, allowing Microsoft to focus on their 
business of creating superior, innovative products. I am a 
government contract researcher and use Microsoft both in my office 
and at home. Microsoft has standardized computer software, creating 
increased efficiency for businesses. It is unfortunate that a 
company is being punished for being successful.
    I urge you to please accept the proposed settlement, as it is 
more than reasonable and will surely promote healthy competition in 
the computer industry. For example, under the settlement terms, 
Microsoft will not only share its source codes with their 
competitors, but also allow extensive flexibility to computer makers 
in way they configure Microsoft software, and that of its 
competitors on new computers. This, along with other stringent 
restrictions in the settlement will surely limit Microsoft's own 
competitiveness, but they are willing to concede to these terms in 
order to get back to the business of what they do best: providing 
innovative IT solutions that not only benefit American consumers, 
but the economy as a whole.
    Sincerely,
    Kang Xu
    K. Xu, 10521 Polk Square Court, North Potomac, MD 20878
    Tel.: (301)-394-0043(o);(301)-279-5952(h); e-mall: 
[email protected]



MTC-00025768

From: bud kuenzli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Recently I ``signed'' (electronically) a letter found 
at http://www.kegel.com/remedy and this is to be sure you understand 
it was not done hastily or without consideration. The points made by 
Dan Kegel were better expressed than had I written my own simple 
paragraph. I believe it will be a travesty of Justice if the 
Microsoft case is not brought to a stricter settlement and 
accounting. I urge you to hold Microsoft to a much stricter standard 
than that which has been proposed, so as to meet the concerns 
expressed by Mr. Kegel directly and by me, through his well done web 
site and commentary.
    Thank you.
    Bud Kuenzli
    Technology Manager,
    Austin E. Lathrop High
    School, Fairbanks Alaska
    wk email: [email protected]
    personal email: [email protected]
    Ab Kuenzli
    2025 Persinger Dr.
    North Pole AK 99705



MTC-00025769

From: Marc S Weintraub
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    In accord with the Tunney Act, I am submitting my comments on 
the Proposed Final Judgement in the Microsoft proceedings (commonly 
known by the somewhat inaccurate description: ``DOJ vs 
Microsoft''). There are many reasons why I find fault with the 
proposed settlement. In order to keep this comment brief, I will 
focus my comments on one specific area that I believe has not 
received a great deal of commentary from the public.
    I am very concerned about the faulty definitions contained 
within the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) and their implications. 
There are numerous examples of alterations to definitions found in 
the Findings of Fact (FOF) as they have been 
``reproduced'' in the PFJ. For example:
    Definition A--``API''
    The FOF defines ``API'' as ``the interfaced 
between application programs and the operating system.''
    The PFJ has altered it to mean only ``the interfaces 
between Microsoft ``Middleware'' and Microsoft Windows, 
excluding Windows APIs used by other application programs.'' 
The PFJ's definition of API permits Microsoft to omit important APIs 
that are crucial to Independent Software Vendors'' (ISV's) 
ability to develop software that integrates with Windows to the same 
extent to which competing Microsoft products are able to do so.
    Definition J--``Microsoft Middleware''
    The FOF defines ``middleware'' as ``application 
software that itself presents a set of APIs which allow users to 
write new applications without reference to the underlying operating 
system.''
    The PFJ destroys the intent and spirit of that definition by 
making it possible for Microsoft to avoid compliance simply by 
altering the form of version enumeration or the method of 
distribution of the products it miserly lists as 
``middleware.'' The PFJ leaves so many holes open to 
Microsoft as to make the concept of ``middleware'' a moot 
point in terms of measuring Microsoft's adherence to the PFJ's 
rememdies. That is simply wrong and must not be permitted.
    Definition K--``Microsoft Middleware Product''
    The PFJ restricts the list of products to Internet Explorer, 
Microsoft Java, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger and Outlook 
Express. It deliberately omits the obvious selections of Microsoft 
.NET, C#, Outlook and Office. There are, no doubt, other 
products that fit the proper definition of ``middleware'' 
and should be included as well. In fact, ideally, there should not 
be a list of what DOES apply, rather there should be a list of what 
DOES NOT. The fact is that no one at Microsoft is going to willingly 
include every product that should be a member of the list unless 
forced to do so. By changing the rules of defining the term 
``middleware'' such that everything is included except 
that which is explicitly excluded, Microsoft will be forced to 
realistically explain the VALID reasons why any product should be 
added to the exclusion list. Only then can there be a reasonable 
expectation that essential APIs MIGHT become available to ISVs.
    Definition U--``Windows Operating System 
Product''
    The PFJ makes unreasonable assumptions about what constitutes a 
Windows Operating System product. It specifically restricts the 
definition to ``only Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP 
Home, Windows XP Professional and their successors.'' What 
about existing Windows products such as Windows CE? What about the 
XBox which Microsoft clearly states runs an embedded version of 
Windows XP? Does ``embedded'' mean it is not 
``Home'' and it is not ``Professional'' and 
therefore it ``does not count?'' What about the Tablet PC 
featuring Windows XP Tabled PC Edition? I do not see the words 
``Home'' or ``Professional'' in that name, does 
it count? I am certain that my and the ISV industry's answer to each 
``does it count'' question is a resounding YES, however I 
am equally certain that Microsoft's is a resounding NO.
    As the PFJ definition currently reads, 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 execute Windows applications. That is 
simply wrong and must not be permitted.
    True competition cannot be ensured due to the faulty definitions 
included in the PFJ. The unwarranted restrictions and syntactic 
gymnastics employed ensure that Microsoft can evade the purpose 
behind the action taken by the DOJ and several State's AGs. The 
purpose should be clear to everyone, it includes (but is not limited 
to):
    *erasing the barriers to entry onto the competitive field by 
ISVs
    *promoting positive and unfettered competition
    *ensuring that Microsoft ceases and desists from its anti-
competitive practices
    *preventing Microsoft from obtaining and abusing future 
monopolistic powers
    The proceedings surrounding this case have far reaching 
implications to the future of Microsoft and the Computer Information 
Industry. If the barriers to true competition are not eliminated 
now, they probably never will be. This is a momentous time given the 
indisputable fact that a US Court has judged (for the first time 
ever) Microsoft to have used and abused Monopolistic powers and to 
have actively engaged in a systematic process of preventing and 
obliterating competition in key sectors of the Computer Information 
Industry.
    If the DOJ permits Microsoft to escape with a slight slap on the 
wrist and a Settlement that is, for all intents and purposes, 
unenforceable by virtue of the highway-sized loopholes it gives 
Microsoft then I must ask you ``why do we have a DOJ? What 
service does it provide to the people of the United

[[Page 27691]]

States of America that cannot be better served by the Private Sector 
and the States'' AGs?''
    I believe the DOJ serves the people of our nation well, with 
dignity and honor 99% of the time. I am gravely concerned that the 
Microsoft Settlement falls under the 1%.
    Thank you for you time and attention to this very important 
matter. Some say this case will make history. I say it already has 
and will continue to do so for decades to come. We are at a 
crossroads. We will either have a 900 pound Monopoly Gorilla or we 
will have the competition that has been the ideal and hallmark of 
the American Free Trade system. We, the American people, are relying 
upon you to do what is right and we have faith in your ability and 
determination to do so.
    /s/ Marc S. Weintraub
    Springfield, VA



MTC-00025770

From: Charles Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I understand you have been bombarded by emails and letters 
during the public comment period, so I will keep this brief for the 
benefit of those having to read all those comments.
    Point One
    Microsoft as a corporation has broken the law repeatedly, even 
when ordered to stop doing so. They will seemingly use any tactic 
short of felony murder to maintain their anti-competitive monopoly. 
This does NOT benefit consumers, it harms them in exactly the same 
way the US economy would be harmed if GM suddenly made it impossible 
for any other car maker to work with standard parts. The proposed 
settlement does little or nothing to PUNISH Microsoft for previous 
bad acts and bad faith, and in doing so REWARDS the company for this 
behaviour and thereby guarantees further such lawbreaking, deception 
and anti-competitive practices.
    I suggest that a very, very large fine--in the billions of 
dollars

--is the only remedy coercive enough to actually foster a 
behavioural change in the ``corporate culture'' of 
Microsoft. Much of the money from this fine should be used to 
redress wrongs done to MS competitors including AOL/Time Warner, 
Apple Computer and many PC hardware manufacturers and hundreds of 
smaller former companies who were bullied right out of the market. 
The rest of the money should be used to fund efforts to encourage 
the development of alternate, specialised OSes (for example, an 
ultra-secure OS for government servers). The precedent for this is 
already present in the government's own settlement with the tobacco 
companies.

    Point Two
    Microsoft has harmed consumers in myriad ways, but they have 
also harmed--in a considerable way--the security of the 
United States government, and the US economy through their admitted 
lapses in security and their drive to become sole-supplier and 
controller of all microcomputer operating systems and 
infrastructure. Billions upon billions have been lost in real 
revenue and productivity thanks to viruses based on weaknesses in 
Microsoft code. Top secret material and other sensitive data by the 
truckload has been stolen and criminal behaviour facilitated by 
security blunders and loopholes deliberately built into Microsoft's 
OS for either marketing purposes or to enhance the convenience of 
possible future Microsoft plans for intrusive monitoring. The right 
to privacy, once the centerpiece of our democracy and the original 
cornerstone of the Internet, is now but a dim memory that is rapidly 
eroding thanks to our deep dependence on buggy, vulnerable software 
and a company who's interests are often in conflict with the best 
interests of the United States. If a foreign company were doing this 
to us, we'd likely have charged them with treason via sabotage by 
now. At the very very least, the government and its contractors 
should punish Microsoft by doing a thorough audit of government 
computer usage and replace Windows systems with alternatives 
wherever possible for at least a period of five years.
    Point Three
    Microsoft's continued flouting of the law and fair business 
practices, combined with their documented (by MS itself) threats to 
competitors by high-level executives in the company (up to and 
including Chairman William H. Gates III) pose a danger to both 
society and capitalism itself. Despite it's propaganda efforts, 
Microsoft is in fact the *least* innovative software manufacturer on 
the scene and actively crushes innovation it cannot control or buy. 
The proposed settlement offers no incentive for Microsoft to cease 
this behaviour, and in fact reaffirms their monopoly and reinforces 
their right to bully competitors and squash innovation.
    My suggestion would be to set vigourous, firmly-enforced limits 
on Microsoft's ability to interfere with competitors in any arena, 
and the best way in my honest opinion to do this would be to inflict 
jail time and other ``real punishments'' on the top 
executives of the company, up to and including Bill Gates. A clear 
message must be sent to both Microsoft *and* future companies that 
would emulate them, and jail time for white-collar executives would 
definitely send the right message. The MS executives can share a 
cell with the Enron executives if you prefer, that's up to you. :)
    But it is long past time that Corporate Criminals got treated 
more like the real criminals they are--they do REAL harm, they 
hurt REAL people and companies, and they should get REAL punishment. 
Otherwise, the widening gap between justice for the rich/powerful 
and justice for the poor/weak will widen into a yawning chasm, and 
to be blunt I expect that at some point we'll foster civil unrest 
and a further weakening of our democracy if we as a society continue 
down that path.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Martin
    Maitland, Florida



MTC-00025771

From: Todd Colburn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to protest the pending settlement with Microsoft. I 
do not feel that the proposed punishments will do any good in 
preventing the continued monopoly practices of Microsoft.
    Thank you.
    Michael Todd Colburn
    Clovis, CA



MTC-00025772

From: James Simons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:37am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I strongly disagree with the proposed settlement with Microsoft.
    Thank You.
    James Edward Simons.



MTC-00025773

From: Donald G. Ebner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    As a concerned citizen interested in justice, I am writing to 
encourage you to do your part to get the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. This issue, which has 
dragged on for an inordinate amount of time (over three years!), is 
taking an adverse toll on our fragile economy and needs to be 
settled with dispatch. From my reading of the proposed settlement, 
Microsoft has indicated a willingness to accept a long list of 
concessions, which I consider more than fair. In my considered 
opinion, the Government needs to accept the firm's offer and move 
on. You'd be doing a service to our country and the technology 
industry if you would accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    I know you occupy a demanding position, one that forces you to 
put long hours in your work. But please know that there are a great 
number of people, yours truly included, who are indebted to you for 
your tireless efforts and contributions to our nation.
    Thank you for your noble service and also for considering this 
request.
    Sincerely,
    Donald G. Ebner, Ph.D.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025774

From: Adam Lippiatt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam
    Microsoft should not be allowed to settle on the basis of 
software, or hardware running their software, being given to 
schools. This ``dumping'' of software should be considered 
anti-competitive and be proscribed. A more appropriate settlement 
would be cash donated for computers with no strings attached in 
relation to the software or hardware purchased.
    Microsoft should also suffer other penalties which appropriately 
punish it for its anti-competitive behaviour. Further, limits should 
be placed on the way it behaves in the future and its ability to use 
its market power to

[[Page 27692]]

negatively affect the industry. The Department of Justice should not 
settle the matter before appropriate sanctions are placed on 
Microsoft.
    Regards
    Adam Lippiatt



MTC-00025775

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Roee Grigg
    11266 N 95 E
    Idaho Falls, ID 83401



MTC-00025776

From: THOMAS P Mc GUIRE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:49am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT



MTC-00025777

From: David Groom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good People,
    Microsoft has been a champion of ensuring consumers benefit from 
low cost and high volume economics of the PC market. In college, I 
remember that Apple computers were nearly double the cost of a PC 
and of course systems from the likes of Sun Microsystems have only 
been accessible to pocket books of big corporations. Microsoft's 
success in building popular products at reasonable prices is the 
obvious reasons for the size of its market share. On the other hand, 
it is disconcerting that the antitrust trial has drug on so long 
only to favor the likes of big corporations like AOL, Sun, and 
Oracle. It is sad to see an American company which has brought such 
consumer benefit, held back for the welfare of corporations like AOL 
and Sun.
    Let Microsoft compete freely. Let the market place decide which 
products should win.
    Regards,
    David Groom



MTC-00025778

From: dave
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Bad form letting Microsoft get away with such a sweatheart deal.
    dave di re



MTC-00025779

From: Hans Huang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:12am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Let's settle it and move on....good for consumers, good for USA, 
good for the whole world...................
    Hans
    Hans Huang,
    Executive QA Pgm Mgr, APQA



MTC-00025780

From: Edith Ang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:13am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    We should thank Microsoft for its operating system and internet 
web and email programs. There is nothing wrong to offer their 
programs all bundled together with a discount price. Companies do it 
all the time. Loss leaders are done at grocery stores. Restaurants 
offer either Coke or Pepsi products but never both.
    If rivals spend more time on offering better programs, public 
will buy it. Why act like cry babies and ask government to interfere 
by punishing the hard working and smarter kids. Let the competitors 
know they must grow up on their own
    Just like the auto industry. Each one of them has to come up 
with something different to compete for the public. Apple Computer 
has its followers because they keep on develop new things for their 
customers. Crest toothpaste for a long time out sells Colgate, now 
the trend is reversing because of new innovation.
    Please stop spending tax money to interfere and fatten the 
lawyers'' pockets.



MTC-00025781

From: David C
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is a really bad idea, Microsoft deserves 
far more strict penalties, they need to remember to be good in the 
future. They wield too much power for a slap on the wrist.
    David Christensen
    UC Berkeley Student
    Berkeley, CA



MTC-00025782

From: David Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    Microsoft should be left alone to make as much money as it can 
make, and to dominate it's competitors as well as it can. In a free 
society, the most competent company will dominate, so instead of 
despising Microsoft for their success, I love and admire the 
company, and look up to Bill Gates. I don't care about other 
computer/software companies. I choose Microsoft because they make 
great products at cheap prices. Even if they raise their prices 
later, they have a right to do it. I believe Microsoft has the right 
to sell in a way that pushes it's competitors out of the market. I 
do the same for the business I work for, to make more money. I 
respect the opposition companies that do better than ours. These 
better companies don't owe us their lives. If our business fails, we 
will take it and respect the opposition more.
    I don't believe in self-sacrifice. I believe that if a company 
fails to compete against Microsoft, how dare that company improve 
it's market share by the musket of a gun; that is, through the 
government. Let men live, not by permission, but by right.
    David Lee



MTC-00025783

From: james paraiso
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 3:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
james paraiso
411 dorothy st #20
el cajon, ca 92019
January 26, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayersO dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall 
Street. With the reins off the high-tech 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 & Carrie Paraiso



MTC-00025784

From: Jay Blackman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the Department of Justice and all other parties to accept 
the Microsoft settlement agreement. I believe it is a settlement 
that conforms to the criteria

[[Page 27693]]

imposed by the Court and is a valuable opportunity for the 
government and the industry to move forward. Thank you.



MTC-00025785

From: Michael R James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe history will look back on this age in America as the 
one that did the most damage by abandoning the ideals that made this 
country so great. This country was founded on the idea that we, as 
individuals, can achieve what we set out to achieve. We have only 
the right to try, not to succeed. The clam sits at the bottom of the 
ocean waiting for food to happen by as it filters the water waiting 
for nutrition, never experiencing anything other than it's simple 
existence. The eagle, on the other hand, flies up to a hundred miles 
searching for food, souring over the landscape and seeing an ever-
changing world. The Eagle, not the clam is the symbol of America. 
What will be our symbol tomorrow? We are surrounded by instances of 
individuals and corporations pointing fingers at the success of 
their competitors and whining about how they should be in that seat. 
How, if everything were more fair, they would be the leaders. It 
strikes me as more than a little hypocritical for the world's 
largest communications company (that absolutely refuses to open such 
a critical tool to today's communication as instant messaging to 
free competition) to be pointing at Microsoft and whining that 
they're (recently) acquired Netscape would have been more successful 
if Microsoft didn't embed IE into windows. Come on, AOL-TW !! You 
yourselves opted for the superior performance and features of IE 
over Netscape for your own AOL browsers not too long ago!!!!!!!! 
Look at the real market facts.. Netscape did fine against IE, even 
though IE was embedded in windows, Netscape was the preferred 
browser by most, and was rated as a better product in the media for 
several versions. Then, starting with version 4.0, IE started to 
offer more competition as it improved it's performance and feature 
set. Eventually the media started touting IE as the winner in the 
``Browser Wars''. It was then, and only then, that 
Netscape started losing market share. Not because IE was embedded 
into windows (it always had been), but because it became a better 
product. Simple, huh? As I said we will be looked upon as the age 
that destroyed competition by punishing those that succeed. Making 
the right judgment in the Microsoft case will not change this, but 
at least it will not contribute to it. Who has really been pushing 
for judgments against Microsoft? The consumers? No. No, I mean the 
ones REALLY behind all of this. Our government has been wielded like 
a puppet by those who stand to gain financially. It is so, blatantly 
obvious to almost everyone I talk to what is really going on. It is 
embarrassing to watch our own government be played like this. 
Michael R James Galileo  BAS, Inc. 
Office 623-551-4296 Mobile 602-549-3903 Fax 
623-551-4297 Email 
 
[email protected]



MTC-00025786

From: James Plante
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:56am
Subject: Axe to grind--7 to 9
    Microsoft [email protected] Thank you for this 
opportunity for me to post an incident that was caused by the 
Microsoft Internet Explorer software package permanently linked to 
the Windows 98 OS package. Prior to the install/upgrade to Windows 
98, my system operated on Windows 95. While working with the 95 OS I 
choose to upgrade my Wordperfect 5.x to the newer Wordperfect Suite 
7.0 (WP7). It is important to realize the sequence in which this 
occurred. With these two packages installed on the 95 operating 
software there were no incidents that occurred that would have 
indicated a compatibility problem. However, after several months of 
what appeared to be an acceptable operating environment I choose to 
upgrade the OS to the newer Windows 98, with it's promise of 
stability and FAT32 capabilities, which I required for expanding my 
memory storage in support for working with graphics. For 
approximately 6 to 9 months I worked with the Suite 7.0 with no 
apparent problems except for a few incidents of an occasional error 
message indicating a problem reading a bad WP7 operating file. As 
this time period progressed the error message increased in frequency 
to eventually delivering the message the file could not be read and 
a reinstallation of the missing file would be necessary. The problem 
begins. Several attempts to reinstall the file resulted in 
permission denied to complete the install. Working on this for 
several days I finally resorted to calling the WP help desk. After 
describing the problem to the phone technician, he responded with 
the question ``Do you have Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) 
installed on your system? I acknowledged that I did have it 
installed since it was linked to the current OS, but noted that I 
choose to use the Netscape internet browser as a preference, so the 
IE browser was not active. He informed me that regardless, with the 
IE browser tied to the OS, the affect the IE package has on your 
system is inevitable. The problem with trying to install WP7 files 
after the Microsoft IE package is installed is to block the 
installation of WP7. The phone technician said he would send me a 
patch, that may or may not work, to work around the effect of the 
Microsoft IE browser blocking the reinstall of WP7. If it did not 
work, allowing me to complete the install, then I would have to 
upgrade to the Wordperfect Suite 9 application software. I did not 
bargain for The IE Browser's affect on my applications. My 
intentions were to upgrade, for improved performance, to a better 
Operating System. With the browser tied into the OS, the browser 
literally destroyed the reliability of my other applications. This 
NEVER should have happened. I would like to see this outfit 
(Microsoft) broken up. Thank you Jim Plante



MTC-00025787

From: Sean Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement HTC-00025787--0001 file:///C/win/
temp/tmp.htm
    Dear DO J,
    No settlement in this case against Microsoft can bring back the 
justice, if the settlement is in any way beneficial to Microsoft. 
The current proposed settlement by Microsoft is totally ludicrous in 
that it gives Microsoft even more market share in the educational 
market which is traditionally dominated by Apple, Inc. The raw cost 
to Microsoft is very minimal. Each copy of Microsoft OS is probably 
less than $1 (each CD cost about 20 cents in a retail store). 
However, Microsoft is selling them for probably $100. A billion 
dollar in software may be just $10 million dollar raw cost in CDs. 
And obviously, if they choose to distribute the bulk of the software 
via internet distribution, the raw cost is close to zero, except the 
occupied download bandwidth.
    Dear Judge, the pervasive existence of Microsoft software has 
become a danger to the public. No email softwares in the brief 
computer history have been susceptible to virus attack. But 
Microsoft came up with their ``ingenious'' Microsoft 
Outlook email software which has opened SO MANY holes to virus & 
warms, such as the famous Melissa virus, etc. The monopoly of 
Microsoft has paralyzed the software industry and consumer public. 
Without substantial competing choices, we are left with buggy and 
unsecure products, and the lack of competition fostered an 
environment where blatant problems are ignored or accepted. So why 
is Microsoft not liable for the virus problem, when indeed it is 
Microsoft Outlook that opens the big door to the virus itself?. And 
it was just simply a total stupidity on Microsoft part that cost the 
whole United States to spend billions of dollars to fix a Y2K 
problem. If in 1995, at the time Microsoft publish their Window95 
OS, or in earlier 90s, when they publish their MSDOS 6.0, the 
``ingenious'' Microsoft programmers can count their year 
from 1995 to 2000 or 2001, and then they would have realized that 
their stored dates in the files are not sufficient. And these MS 
guys didn't even need to pay for 1 cent for Y2K cost. Instead, they 
could pitch their new softwares Win98, or Win2000, that those don't 
have Y2K file:///Cwin/temp/tmp.htm problems. I just don't know what 
kind of justice is there, if Microsoft is not punished for their 
mistakes and business practices which have suffocated software 
innovations.
    Sincerely,
    Sean
    P.S. I'm a software programmer for 20 years, and a hardware chip 
designer for 5 year. I am sorry to say that software programmers at 
Microsoft have one of the lower IQs on this planet. They just cannot 
count from 1995 to 2000, nor they don't know that attached files in 
the email can be malicious, nor do they know anything about 30 years 
of speech recognition research at IBM, and ends up buying a speech 
recognition company, and was unable to develop their own.



MTC-00025788

From: Tims

[[Page 27694]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement for the Microsoft case is a bad 
idea. It will cost Microsoft a fraction of the estimated cost to 
donate software and the like. Also, it would reward Microsoft by 
allowing them to expand their market share in the area of education. 
There needs to be a ``cash'' pay out to schools with no 
incentive to purchase Microsoft related equipment.
    Tims Johnson
    Winter Springs, FL 32708
    Blacklist Productions
    http://www.blacklistfilm.com



MTC-00025789

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:07am
Subject: Microsoft settlement (against)
    Hello:
    I am against the Justice Department's proposed Microsoft 
settlement as it now stands because I believe it does nothing to 
restore competition in the software industry.
    First, Microsoft was found to use its monopoly power to stop 
competition in areas that it felt threatened it's Window's monopoly. 
These two areas specifically were the internet browser market and 
where the Java programming language was concerned. This was because 
both technologies threatened to undermine the Window's Operating 
System, the source of Microsoft's power. I am against the proposal 
because it does nothing to restore competiton to the internet 
browser market, and it does nothing to prevent Microsoft from not 
supporting Java. I will further explain these two assertions. First, 
Microsoft already owns the internet browser market due to its 
anticompetitve efforts. Even if the proposed settlement was to take 
effect, Microsoft would be under no threat from competition in this 
market because it has already tied its Internet Explorer browser to 
Windows. In fact users of Windows have to go out of their way to use 
alternative products such as Netscape's Navigator Browser and from 
my experience many people do not even know that alternative products 
exist (in some cases better products). The proposed settlement does 
not recitify this situation, as it merely is an effort to stop 
Microsoft from using its power in this manner again in the future. 
This really is little concern for Microsoft because it does not need 
to do this again as it has already killed the competition in this 
area, and the lack of competion threatens to destroy competition in 
even other areas, as I will explain further later.
    I want to first say that any effort to undue the wrong done by 
Microsoft must force it to untie its browser from Windows so that 
other browsers have a chance to compete with Microsoft's browser. 
Furthermore, Microsoft's browser must be forced to conform to open 
internet standards and not be allowed to use it's monoploy power to 
exclude alternate technologies, as it is doing now. For example, 
many websites now will only work correctly with Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer. Furthermore, some of these sites will only work correctly 
if you are using the version of Internet Explorer for Windows, which 
encourages people to use Windows out of necessity not choice. To 
illustrate this point I can be using the same version of Internet 
Explorer on a competing platform, such as a Macintosh computer, as 
on a Windows machine and some websites will not work properly 
because Microsoft has made both browsers work differently to the 
benefit of the Windows version. If a person needs to access some of 
these internet sites, or encounters this type of problem enough, 
that person might buy a Windows based computer the next time around 
just because Microsoft has made it impossible for that person to use 
another platform. With Netscape's browser I never had this problem. 
Internet sites viewed on any platform worked the same when using 
Netscape Navigator. Netscape made the Internet open, Microsoft 
attempts to make the internet only open to users of its products, 
which kills competition.
    Another thing the settlement should force Microsoft to do is 
include Java support in any version of Windows that it ships. 
Windows XP does not do this even though other versions of Windows 
did. This is a devastating blow to competition. By doing so 
Microsoft is making it harder for developers to write software for 
multiple platforms because developers have to write software 
individually for multiple platforms without Java, whereas with Java 
they can write software once and it will work on various platforms. 
As a Macintosh user I can attest to the fact that developers will 
often neglect the Mac platform because they will have to spend a 
majority of their time writing software for Windows, which is a 
larger market. This kills competiton in the operating system market 
because people will often not buy a Mac because of a lack of 
software. If a developer can use Java, this problem is greatly 
alleviated, and Microsoft accordingly should be forced to support 
it. The current settlement does not do this.
    Additionally Microsoft has often held an axe of sorts over the 
closest consumer based competitor in the operating system market. I 
am referring to Apple. Apple needs Microsoft Office to survive as 
most people who want to use Macs still want to communicate with 
people using Windows. Microsoft in the past has threatened to stop 
making Office for the Mac if Apple did not bend to its wishes, even 
though making Office is profitable for Microsoft . Some of these 
demands have been for Apple to replace Netscape Navigator for 
Internet Explorer as the default browser on Macintoshes(this dmaged 
Mac users as Netscape was equal on multiple platforms), for Apple to 
share some of its proprietary technology with Microsoft so it could 
make Windows better (taking away Apple's Operating System's 
superiority), and trying to get Apple to stop making Quicktime, its 
competing software, for Windows. A deal that guarenteed that 
Microsoft would produce Office for the Mac is about to expire. 
Microsoft should not be able to hold the Office knife to Apple's 
throat any longer. As long as Office is profitable on the Mac 
platform, Microsoft should be forced to make a version of it for the 
Mac that is compatible with the Window's version. Even if it is not 
profitable Microsoft should still be required to make the software 
for a while, as Microsoft's anticompetive efforts have hurt Apple's 
market share, and Apple should be given a chance to recover some of 
this. Microsoft Office started on the Mac, it should be kept there. 
Doing so allows Apple to compete with Microsoft without the fear of 
retribution. If this issue is not address, Microsoft will continue 
to control Apple, which might result in Apple unfairly going out of 
business. If this happened people like me, who prefer alternate 
technologies to Microsoft's offerings, will eventually be forced to 
use only Microsoft products. This not only is anticompetive, but 
anti-American, as America is about the freedom to choose. Microsoft 
exterted a great effort to prevent people from doing this, a 
stricter settlement is in order reverse the damage that Microsoft 
has done.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Paluchniak
    414 Kellogg Street #50 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 
665-6381



MTC-00025790

From: donald mead
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The DOJ argument in the Microsoft, MS, antitrust case were 
excellent. Please carry that excellence through to the end of the 
process and revise the settlement to reflect the findings in the 
case. An example of one condition that would bring the settlement 
more inline with addressing the findings and be cleanly enforceable 
would be to require MS to make freely and publicly accessible -
without any restrictions prohibiting outside usage- all 
specifications and related information for Application Programmer 
Interfaces (APIs,) protocols and other interconnections between all 
software and hardware components at least six months to one year 
before MS can release a second software component that utilizes that 
specification. Also when MS implements any standard established by 
an outside organization that MS be restricted to full compliance 
with the standard without any additions or modifications other than 
approved and incorporated into the standard through procedures 
established by the standard setting organization. Any violation 
would require MS to remove from the market -with a buy back plan- 
all products which contain a component which is in violation of this 
condition with the prohibition from engaging in any activity 
whatsoever with regard to the product -other than offering to repay 
any and all purchasers- for a term of six months to one year plus 
the time which the initial release fell short of compliance. Any 
further non-compliance would result in MS relinquishing to the 
public domain the source code for the violating software.
    This specific part of a reasonable remedy would allow MS to 
continue innovating while allowing other vendors to fairly compete 
within the operating system or application area and restricting MS 
from using its monopolistic advantages from subverting standards 
designed to benefit a competitive community and the public.

[[Page 27695]]

    Thank you for your considerable efforts and diligence,
    donald mead
    Tucson, AZ
    [I am an independent computer consultant whose only connection 
with this case is that of a concerned citizen and computer user.]



MTC-00025791

From: ruth.annd@ verizon.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:18am
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,
    Ruth Ann Danielson
    5411 144th Pl. SW
    Edmonds, WA 98026



MTC-00025792

From: Leonard Cecil--Music of Note
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:46am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust case
    Hello!
    If you've got enough money you can buy anything--including 
your competition. microsoft has proved this time and time again. 
With the current proposed settlement, Microsoft is proposing to 
``buy'' the school market with it's $1-billion penalty. 
Donate used hardware and software of it's own kind to schools 
(btw--is that $1-billion market value or production value. I 
doubt seriously that a CD with MS-Office cost MS more than $1 to 
produce, but if donated at market value will be ``worth'' 
many hundreds of dollars!) and thereby force the schools to tow the 
Microsoft line because they will not be able to afford other 
possible solution in the future without totally new money outputs. 
In this case MS sets itself up--as it's own punishment--a 
school monopoly by giving away Microsoft compatable hard- and 
software.
    Now if Microsoft were to donate $1-billion worth of it's 
competitors'' hardware and software, that's more like a 
punishment, than the above reward they are being sentenced to for 
monopolistic practices. And furthermore, since when does the 
convicted get to suggest his/her punishment? The bank robber? The 
rapist? certainly not. Not even other white-collar criminals like 
embezzelors and tax evaders. But if you are big enough and rich 
enough, you can even buy your own punishment.
    Phooey!
    greetings
    Leonard Cecil



MTC-00025793

From: shahid ali
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    they filed lawsuit only for a full marketing purpose. They are 
doing nothing but marketing their own name, everyone knows that 
microsoft is devoted for the betterment of computer industry. If 
microsoft favouring the people of the world then who are they to 
stop microsoft, favouring mankind.
    shahid



MTC-00025794

From: A1 Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:56am
Subject: Proposed anti-trust settlement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025794 0001

Albert R. Davis, MD
438 May Street
Elmhurst, IL 60126
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Washington, DC 20530
January 25, 2002
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I would like to take this opportunity to forward my comments to 
you regarding the proposed anti-trust settlement in the case of 
USDOJ v Microsoft. I am an anesthesiologist by profession, but have 
used personal computers since purchasing my first in 1982, and have 
an undergraduate degree in Accounting and Business Data Systems. I 
have maintained a strong interest in computers since 1982 and have 
business experience both as a programmer and as the owner of a 
computer sales firm.
    I want to make it clear at the outset that I am completely 
opposed to the settlement as proposed. Microsoft's reasons for their 
position are specious, at best, and the proposal offers neither 
remedy for Microsoft's past transgressions nor protection from 
further abuse of both competing interests and the public at large.
    As you know, Microsoft was essentially born with a silver spoon 
in its mouth. The company was intially granted a contract to provide 
IBM with an operating system for their then-new PC, which at the 
time immediately overran the PC world and rapidly eliminated 
virtually all of IBM's hardware competition in terms of non-IBM 
based architecture. While IBM developed an open architecture for 
their hardware, Microsoft immediately and aggressively pursued 
supplier contracts with IBM's competitors, thus very rapidly 
achieving a monopoly position in terms of operating system market 
share. By the time IBM introduced the PC-XT, Microsoft held well 
over 50% of the OS market, including the PC-DOS product sold by IBM 
under license from Microsoft. In the mid-1980s the limitations of 
MS-DOS were becoming apparent and IBM and Microsoft started work on 
what eventually became IBM's 0S/2 and Microsoft's Windows NT. 
Meanwhile, Microsoft initiated sales of their DOS-based Windows 
product. While early Windows products languished, Microsoft made 
enormous profits from sales of DOS which they used not only to 
improve Windows but, more importantly, to buy influence in the PC 
press and among manufacturers. At a time when PC Magazine often 
contained more than 400 pages per issue Micorosft bought enormous 
quantities of ad space, and the largesse of their parties at trade 
shows and media events was legendary. Microsoft was certainly a 
major force in the industry and until this point the company was an 
all-American success story of luck combined with high energy and 
intelligent business manuevers.
    MS-DOS was essentially unchanged from its initial versions until 
the release of version 4, at which point Microsoft began to write 
code designed to take advantage of improvements in PC architecture. 
Its early experience was dismal however, and not only did Microsoft 
receive its first substantial criticism in the press, it also left 
itself open for the first time to competition from competing 
software firms. It was Microsoft's response to this 
competition--Quarterdeck's desqView and it's associated memory 
management software, QEMM--that led to my first personal 
encounter with their detrimental and predatory practices. To make a 
long story short, I found that Microsoft's Windows 3.0 installation 
routine searched for a memory manager product from Quarterdeck 
called QEMM. If it found QEMM, Windows would refuse to install. QEMM 
released patches, and Microsoft promptly came up with new ways to 
seek out QEMM and refuse to install. The issues were not related to 
incompatability or instability--QEMM was a clearly superior 
product. The entire situation was due to Microsoft's intentional and 
deliberate willingness to sacrifice the user's time and money in 
order to defeat Quarterdeck in the memory manager application space. 
Quarterdeck ultimately declared bankruptcy in the early ``90s. 
This was about the same time period that Microsoft first became 
noticed within the industry for possible antitrust violations 
because of a series of alleged patent infrigements and copywrite 
violations against various companies writing software utilities 
designed to enhance the performance of Windows. In every case, 
however, Microsoft succeeded in either appropriating technology or 
simply driving companies out of business because they had such 
enormous cash flows that no single small competitor stood a chance 
against them in court. This was also the time period when Microsoft 
began to impose what is now called the ``Microsoft tax'' 
on PC buyers. Microsoft began to write exclusive, ``per-
processor'' royalty agreements with computer sellers, which 
meant that anyone who bought a PC was forced to buy the current 
version of Windows whether they intended to use it or not. The 
exclusive nature of those contracts prevented

[[Page 27696]]

PC retailers from offering any OS other than Microsoft's, and the 
per-processor tactic forced PC buyers to pay for an MS OS even if 
they wanted a computer with no OS on which they would subsequently 
install a non-MS OS. While the ``per-processor'' clauses 
may have been eliminated by Microsoft's 1995 consent decree, the 
fact remains that it is nearly impossible today for an individual to 
purchase a PC which does not have Microsoft's OS de jour installed 
on it. In 1995, however, when I went shopping for a PC with IBM's 
OS/2 OS installed on it, I was unable to find one, despite 
contacting each of the top 10 PC manufacturers in business at the 
time. In every case, I was told that I would have to purchase a PC 
with Windows on it; buying a PC with no OS was not an option. That 
was the year I began to build my own computers, which is a practice 
I continue today for essentially the same reasons.



MTC-00025794-0002

    Microsoft's business practices from the early 1990s to today 
are, I'm sure, well known to you. While Microsoft's legal strategy 
throughout the antitrust struggle has focused on 
``innovation'', the fact is that their business strategy 
has been much more focused on acquisition. Today 0S/2 is not 
available on any retail PC that I am aware of, and Linux is 
supported only as a grudging concession to user demands by companies 
which are afraid to anger Microsoft.
    Microsoft's monopoly has indeed been bad for the 
industry--witness the decrease in the size and number of both 
popular and trade journals and magazines, despite the ever present 
growth of the PC industry (until this year.) Consider that OS/2, 
which has had practically zero support from IBM since 1988, is still 
in use in banks and insurance companies across the county. Imagine 
the growth and innovation which might have arisen from this 
radically different OS had they had the benefit of a fair sales 
environment for the past decade. Linux, which is certainly the most 
innovative business model of the past 50 years, and which offers 
direct competition to Microsoft, has been stifled much more by 
Microsoft's strong-arm techniques than by the shortcomings of its 
sales approach. Even when one considers what is called the 
``network effect'' of an OS which tends to generate 
pressure towards a monopolistic economic model, the network effect 
alone cannot begin to account for the inability of either of these 
equivalent (if not superior) operating systems to affect Microsoft's 
market share.
    Microsoft's monopoly has been equally bad for consumers. The 
vast majority of computer users simply are not equipped by either 
propensity or training to become software experts any more than the 
average driver is equipped to become a mechanic. In the automobile 
industry reliability has become a given precisely because of that 
fact. In the Microsoft dominated OS industry, however, unreliability 
has become a fact of life, to the extent that having a friend or 
neighbor with computer experience is often listed as an important 
factor in the computer purchase decision. Microsoft's monopoly 
position has allowed them to abrogate their support responsibility 
towards their customers almost completely; since the vast majority 
of OS sales occur in tandem with new computer sales, and since 
Microsoft now requires many OEMs to support Windows for them, 
Microsoft has lost practically all incentive to design reliable 
products. They are pouring their time and expertise into the 
acquisition and development of new technology, while caring little 
for the reliability of their current products. The time and expense 
costs to both individuals and businesses is enormous; it is common 
to hear stories of upgrades that never happen because ``We 
finally got it working right, and we don't want to mess with 
it.''



MTC-00025794-0003

    The current proposed anti-trust agreement is completley unsuited 
to solving the problems which exist today because of Microsoft's 
monopoly, but there is a simple, fair solution. Rather than writing 
a detailed, convoluted agreement which attempts to address a myriad 
of problems in a very specific way, each of which can easily be 
circumvented, the DOJ can achieve the goals of fair business 
practices, customer service improvement and the elimination of an 
illegally maintained monopoly thrugh two simple actions.
    First, the DOJ should prohibit Microsoft from selling any of its 
software as part of a hardware ``bundle'' for a period of 
at least five years. Microsoft should be allowed to sell directly, 
through retail, as a contracted supplier to busines or by any other 
means possible, as long as their products are not bundled with, 
contingent upon or in any other way linked to the sale of computing 
hardware unless the hardware is manufactured by Microsoft (such as 
their mouse, but even including a complete PC should they choose to 
manufacture one.)
    Second, Microsoft should be forbidden from purchasing any 
company outright, obtaining a majority share in any company or 
exclusively licensing any company's technology for an equally long 
time period.
    The application of these two constraints will meet all of the 
DOJ's requirements while not placing unfair, irresponsible or 
destructive mechanisms in place against the company. Forcing 
Microsoft to sell its products to the public rather than to OEMs 
will finally allow the general public to become aware of Microsoft's 
competition simply because they will see it in the store when they 
shop; business users, meanwhile, will be able to negotiate with 
Microsoft for the products they need without the necessity of 
factoring the ``Microsoft tax'' into their purchasing 
decisions. Placing responsibility for the sale back into Microsoft's 
hands will also require them to once again consider the reliability 
and stability of their products--performance issues will no 
longer be ``someone else's problem.'' Installation, 
maintenance and comparability will all benefit from Microsoft's 
assumption of this responsibility.
    By forbidding Microsoft from gaining exclusive control of 
computing technology, the restriction against purchasing/exclusive 
licensing will ensure that Microsoft will not be able to use their 
80 billion dollar cash hoard to simply shut out the competition from 
innovation. Microsoft may obtain new technology as it evolves in the 
industry, but they must be restrained from preventing their 
competitors from accessing that same technology.
    These two constraints are simple, difficult to circumvent, 
easily enforceable and reasonably achievable. While economic shifts 
are anticipated from any effective remedial measures, these 
restrictions will ensure that the market changes will be relatively 
gradual and non-disruptive to the company. Assuming that the market 
responds to the public's need for simple installation and operation 
of computer OSs the impact on the public will be minor. The 
additional expense of purchasing an OS will be offset by the decline 
in hardware prices. While these remedies would not prevent a 
Microsoft competitor from attempting to obtain exclusive licensing 
agreements with OEMs, the practical residual effects of Microsoft's 
current monopoly would make it unlikely for any OEM to sign such 
agreements. Microsoft has transformed over the years from a lucky, 
plucky company in the right place at the right time into a malicious 
behemoth interested only in the domination of its competition 
without regard to the best interests of its own customers. The 
currently proposed remedies do not substantially alleviate this 
transformation, and some other means must be found to re-introduce 
real innovation and competition into a vital sector of the American 
economy.



MTC-00025794-0004

    I hope you will give serious consideration to these comments, 
and I appreciate your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Albert R. Davis, MD



MTC-00025795

From: PAUL HENRY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:57am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE ABSURDITY OF THIS CASE AGAINST MICROSOFT 
WHO IS NOT A MONOPOLY I DON'T CARE HOW THE JUDGE SEES IT WHAT A 
MANIPULATION OF THE COURT SYSTEM . CHECK IT OUT TODAY LINUX IS 
STEALING BUSINESS FROM MICROSOFT IBM HAS A LINUX ONLY SERVER 
AVAILABLE , AOL HAS FORTY MILLION USERS AND WITH TIME WARNER HAS AN 
ENORMOUS EDGE OVER MICROSOFT ON THE INTERNET AN UPSTART CALLED 
LINDOWS IS CHALLANGING MICROSOFT BEA OPERATING SYSTEM IS READY TO 
CHALANGE ON THE .NET STRATAGY . THE ORIGINAL CASE WAS FOR BUNDLING 
INTERNET EXPLORER WHERE IT WAS RULED BY THE COURT THAT MICROSOFT WAS 
WITHIN THE LAW TO DO SO , AT THAT TIME THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 
DROPPED , BUT JUDGE JACKSONS VENDETA AGAINST MICROSOFT KEPT HIM 
GOING TO BRING CHARGES THAT WERE NOT IN THE ORIGINAL CASE CAN 
SOMEBODY EXPLAIN TO ME HOW WHEN YOU HAVE ALL OF THESE BILLIONARES

[[Page 27697]]

SCOTT MCNEALY, LARRY ELLISON,ECT ... THAT THE COURT ALLOW'S THEM TO 
COMPETE TO DESTROY MICROSOFT WITH LAWYERS INSTEAD OF MAKING THIER 
OWN COMPETING PRODUCT , THEY HAVE THE RESOURCES ,IBM WAS A 
JUGGERNAUGHT WITH OS2 WHEN BILL GATES WAS A NOBODY . EVERYBODY HAS A 
CHOICE TO BUY AN APPLE COMPUTER WHICH IS A PERSONAL COMPUTER JUST 
THE SAME AS A WINDOWS PC IT ``S OPERATING SYSTEM IS BASED ON 
UNIX THE SAME AS SUNS SOLAIRIS AND THE MANY OTHER FLAVORS OF UNIX 
WHICH IS WHAT MOST COMPANY'S AND THE GOVERNMENT USE ON THEIR 
SERVERS. OTHER OS'S ARE BEA, CALDERA ,DOS, COBALT, DR. DOS, ECT... 
PEOPLE USE MICROSOFT BECAUSE THEY ARE THE BEST, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE 
ONLY ONES WHO HAVE SPENT BILLIONS IN RESEARCH TO DEVELOP THE ONLY 
NEW OPERATING SYSTEM BUILT FROM SCRATCH IN FIFTY YEARS , AND BECAUSE 
THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO HAVE BUILT SOFTWARE THAT WILL WORK WITH 
THE MILLIONS OF PROGRAMS THAT ARE WRITTEN OUT THEIR .CONSUMERS HAVE 
A CHOICE SO MICROSOFT IS NOT A MONOPALY JUST THE BEST . SYMANTEC , 
MCAFEE , AND GAME MANUFACTURERS MAKE FAR MORE MONEY THAN MICROSOFT 
WITH LITTLE EFFORT COMPARED TO THE MAKING OF WINDOWS XP FOR NINTY 
NINE DOLLARS , LESS THAN A GOOD MEAL AT A RESTARAUNT I GET FREE 
UPDATES FOR YEARS , AND IN THE PAST MOST USERS SHARED OR PIRATED A 
COPY FOR THEIR FRIEND'' S TO BOOT AT MICROSOFTS EXPENSE . 
SYMANTEC AFTER PAYING SEVENTY DOLLARS FOR THIER VIRUS PROGRAM WARNS 
ME ON A DAILY BASIS AFTER TEN MONTHS TO ANTY UP FIFTY MORE DOLLARS 
FOR AN UPRADE I HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THIS DAILY AND IF I CAN'T STAND 
IT ANY MORE, LOSE TWO MONTHS BY PAYING UP . MICROSOFT IS WITHIN 
THEIR RIGHTS TO DO THE SAME THING MAKE YOU PAY EVERY YEAR TO USE THE 
OS , AND THEY ARE WITHIN THIER RIGHT TO CHARGE FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS 
A COPY AS IT IS MY WRITE NOT TO PAY IT . HOW DARE THE GOVERNMENT AND 
AOL , SUN , ECT...USE TNE COURT SYSTEM TO EXTORT MONEY FROM 
MICROSOFT JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCCSESFUL WHY DON'T THEY COMPETE IN 
THE MARKET PLACE , AND TO THE GOVERNMENT TAX EACH OPERATING SYSTEM 
IF YOU WANT MONEY, CALL IT WHAT IT IS BECAUSE THE PRICE WILL HAVE TO 
GO UP TO GIVE YOU YOUR SHARE, BUT REMEMBER YOU ARE NOT ONLY STEALING 
FROM MICROSOFT , YOU ARE ALSO STEALING FROM THE STOCKHOLDERS , 401K 
RETIREMENT ACCTS. , TEACHERS ,FIREMEN, POLICE , MOTHERS, CHILDREN 
,ECT ... LET THE MARKET DICTATE WHAT HAPPENS , LET BILL INOVATE AND 
LET US ENJOY WHAT WE HAVE BECAUSE OF HIM . HE SPEND S BILLIONS ON 
CHARITABLE CAUSES BESIDES WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR MODERN TECHNOLAGY 
DON'T CAUSE THIS COMPANY TO FOLD LIKE ENRON BECAUSE OF FRIVILOUS 
LAWSUITS



MTC-00025796

From: valuelink1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:00am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
240 N Michigan Avenue
Villa Park, IL 60181-2073
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Attorney General:
    I had been hopeful that the Justice Department would settle its 
anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft for the last year and a half, 
and I am glad to see the two sides were finally able to reach a 
reasonable compromise in November of last year. This case has 
dragged on for much too long, and it is time for the government to 
spend its time and energy on more important issues than trying to 
hinder the success of an innovative company such as Microsoft.
    Our nation's economy is struggling at the moment, and settling 
this case will do much to stimulate it. Once competition increases 
in the technology industry it will get a real boost, and this will 
affect the whole economy. This will be made possible by Microsoft's 
willingness to grant rights to computer-makers that will allow them 
to promote non-Microsoft products within Windows. There is no reason 
to extend this lawsuit past this point. I appreciate your settling 
this case and stopping litigation at the federal level. I am looking 
forward to seeing the government focus on improving the economy in 
the future.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis Chesney
    [email protected]
    cc: Representative Henry Hyde



MTC-00025797

From: ROBERT E LAMBDIN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement..
    Dear Sir.. Think that the agreement with Bill Bates of Microsoft 
is fair, and I don't think that you need to drag your feet any 
longer on this matte settle and lets get on with life and turn your 
time into helping us X Service men with our dire needs. help is 
needed today..Robert Eugene Lambdin.. Retired USN..



MTC-00025798

From: Luc Pardon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Although a citizen of a European Community country, and not a 
U.S. citizen, I'd like to have my objections on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement on record.
    The proposed settlement will not reverse the harm done by 
Microsoft as a result of its unlawful actions. Instead, it attempts 
to prevent them from continuing these actions. To most every 
prohibition listed, however, there is an ``except'' 
clause, listing in vague terms the conditions under which Microsoft 
would be excempt from the restriction.
    It is clear that this will make enforcement impossible, since 
costly lawsuits will be needed to stop any percieved infringement. 
This is out of reach for most competitors. It certainly is for 
companies like mine.
    Therefore it is clear that the proposed settlement is 
ineffective and insufficient. In fact, it will freeze the current 
situation, which has been established as a consequence of 
Microsoft's unlawful actions.
    Finally, I'd like to point out the harm done to the U.S. 
international reputation. The sudden reversal of position by the DOJ 
upon the instatement of Mr. Bush's government has not gone 
unnoticed, and was in fact expected. Western civilisation is based 
on separation of powers. The current situation is percieved as a 
vaudeville. It severely undermines the credibility of the United 
States as a Western civilized nation.
    Thank you for your attention, Luc Pardon
    Chief Executive Officer
    Skopos Consulting
    Middeveldweg 1
    Hombeek
    Belgium



MTC-00025799

From: Anders Stankiewicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In order to restore competition in the software business, 
Microsoft must be broken into 3 separate companies. One for windows, 
one for office applications and a third for internet related 
software. The windows company must be restricted to only building 
APIs that othercompanies may use.
    The Office company must be restricted in the same way from 
adding direct internet functionality. Rather they must build links 
to standardised functions such as mail and viewing web contens from 
inside the office applications. These links must allways be generic 
and open and allow any other vendor to sell such a software.
    If a product is the best, it must have a chance to win... that 
is not the case currently when Microsoft sets its sights on 
something.
    Sincerely
    Anders



MTC-00025800

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/26/02 5:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am merely a layperson and perhaps I misunderstand. I thought 
that the purpose of an antitrust settlement after the misbehavior of 
the defendant was determined, was to ensure that the defendant would 
go forth and sin no more. I must say that Microsoft does not seem to 
me to be a very repentent miscreant, and that--given that 
Microsoft probably has no intention of giving up its monopolistic 
ways without a fight, the DOJ negotiated agreement appears to be 
utterly inadequate.
    It appears to me that the agreement constitues a summary of 
Microsoft's past anticompetitive practices and a collection of

[[Page 27698]]

niggling legalisms that might -- on very good 
days--prevent some of them from being repeated.
    I would suggest that what is needed instead is a blanket 
prohibition on ANY practices that allow Microsoft to use its 
monopoly in the operating system market to further ANY non-OS 
Microsoft corporate activity of any sort. This should be coupled 
with effective enforcement mechanisms and draconian financial 
penalties for transgressions.
    I would suggest that any settlement that falls short of that 
level will merely lead to another trial, another conviction and 
another settlement a few years downstream.
    Why not do the job properly now?
    Donald Kenney



MTC-00025801

From: Megan Deon Cross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:43am
Subject: Rationals



MTC-00025802

From: Philippe Verdy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    About the James K. Glassman's quote: ``Instead of 
straightening out its business problems, AOL has decided to spend 
its time and effort filing lawsuits against tough 
competitors--a petty, distracting pursuit that won't help AOL 
or, for that matter, the U.S. economy, which depends on firms like 
Microsoft for the innovation necessary to bring about a technology 
revival.'' How can such an argument come to the legal field ? 
There is absolutely no reason why a company can do all it wants, 
simply because it has a dominating position in the market place. 
Microsoft has a dominating position, but this CANNOT be an argument 
that authorizes it to ignore legal constraints that apply to it and 
all its competitors. If it was the case, then the laws that prevent 
a company or person to abuse its dominating position in a given area 
would be senseless.
    Fair competition requires that even dominating actors respect 
the same constraints than its competitors, even when this dominating 
actor is important or vital for a given economy: the economy is 
based on the fair competition between actors, whatever their size, 
nature, or importance. This allows for renewal of the marketplace. 
And this is also required for the constitutional rights in most 
democracies that gives the freedom of establishing businesses to 
every people or company.
    The laws that protect consumers or competitors, and allow them 
to make business in a free but regulated market, act for the long-
term safety of the economy: a dominating actor is exposed to the 
general business-place risks, and may not survive a possible future 
business-crash, and it is vital for the overall economy that 
competitors can offer the service previously offered by the 
dominating actor. And allowing competitors to make business also 
acts in favor of innovation, by allowing a richer range of 
alternative products, services and technologies: this is a benefit 
for the consumer which can determine what he really needs, and which 
can buy something else that the expensive package what the 
dominating actor proposes. All this means that Microsoft, as well as 
its competitors, must respect all fair business rules, including 
equilibrated business contracts between it and its consumers, 
providers or co-branding partners. When an actor has a dominating 
position, the terms of such business contracts tend to become mostly 
unequilibrated in favor of the dominating actor, which adds 
constraints and rules that prevent it from its fair obligation 
without giving any counterpiece to its co-contractants. This is 
caused by the fact that these contractants have in fact no real 
possible choice when signing a business contract with this 
dominating actor.
    In that case, the legal intitution must control the terms of all 
business contracts proposed by the dominating actor, and compare it 
with terms proposed by other competitors, so that unequilibrated 
terms of such contracts can be declared void by the justice. When a 
practice becomes too common, the authorities can regulate nationaly 
or internationaly to fix a common direction for the justice 
authorities, and give them legal arguments that can prevent unfair 
practices.
    Philippe Verdy.
    France.



MTC-00025803

From: Glenn Holmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing in reference to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. I am a professional programmer with 15 
years experience, covering numerous operating systems, computer 
architectures, and programming languages.
    I do not feel that the proposed remedies are adequate in the 
area of documentation. In order to remedy Microsoft's past behavior 
and prevent it from occurring in the future, the government needs to 
require that *all* programming interfaces be made public. This 
includes not only operating system APIs, but networking protocols 
and file formats as well. (I do not think Microsoft should be 
required to make its source code public; the implementation details 
of these interfaces are what make one company stand out with a 
superior product, and should be protected if the company wishes them 
to remain proprietary.)
    Section III.E of the proposed judgement does not go far enough. 
All networking protocols must be made public (not just licensed) in 
order to make sure that server products designed to work with 
Windows (especially Open Source projects like the Samba project, 
http://samba.org) do not face a barrier to entry. It is crucial that 
the Justice Department take a stand in this area now, before 
Microsoft is allowed to gain an illegal advantage in the emerging 
area of web services with its .NET technology.
    The proposed judgement does not mention disclosure of the 
formats for data files created by Microsoft applications. As the 
Findings of Fact notes in section III.B.1.39, ``the size of 
Windows'' installed base impels ISVs to write applications 
first and foremost to Windows''. File formats must be made 
public in order to reduce barriers to entry in the area of 
productivity applications, specifically word processors, 
spreadsheets, etc. designed to be compatible with Microsoft Office 
(for example, Star Office: http://www.sun.com/software/star/
staroffice). I can cite personal experience in this area, as job 
recruiters in my field nearly always require resumes in Microsoft 
Word format.
    Unless stronger measures than those proposed are taken in these 
areas, I feel that the government's considerable efforts in 
addressing these issues will have been wasted. Microsoft will still 
be able to compete on the basis of the quality of its products 
compared to those of other companies, but if the remedies are not 
stronger, that competition will never get a chance to exist.
    (Note: the address I am mailing from is my home e-mail; my 
business e-mail is listed in the reply-to header and below.)
    Glenn Holmer
    [email protected]
    Programmer/Analyst
    phone: 414.908.1809
    Weyco Group, Inc.
    fax: 414.908.1601



MTC-00025804

From: jin choung
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    hello,
    please don't let microsoft off the hook with a mere slap on the 
hand. you cannot count on any corporation to ``throttle 
back'' of its own accord. every corporation deserves freedom 
and has its rights but when a corporation oversteps its bounds, it 
needs to be FORCED into its place. not coaxed. not persuaded. not 
asked.
    jin choung
    glendale, ca.



MTC-00025806

From: Ron arky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:08am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I feel the start of the dot com crash was the microsoft suit, 
the sooner it is settled and put behind us the sooner the market can 
return to normal.
    Respectfully
    Ron Keller



MTC-00025807

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whomever 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

[[Page 27699]]

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.
    Yours Sincerely,
    Adam Myers.



MTC-00025808

From: Steve Waldman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The attached Tunney Act comments have been submitted by fax (26-
January-2002), as an e-mailed PDF document (26-January-2002), and by 
a commercial overnight carrier (delivery a.m., 28-January-2002). I 
apologize for the multiple modes of submission, but it is important 
that these comments be verifiably received by the morning of January 
28. I would be very grateful if the Department could provide an 
acknowledgement of on-deadline receipt of these comments, perhaps by 
e-mail. Many thanks for your attention and assistance.
    Steven Waldman



MTC-00025808-0001

Steven Waldman
44 Stridesham Ct
Baltimore, MD 21209
(410) 336-1408
[email protected]
January 26, 2002
US Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
Attn: Renata Hesse
    Re: Comments regarding Proposed Final Judgement
    United States v. Microsoft Corporation
    Civil Action No. 98-1232
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the US v. 
Microsoft Proposed Final Judgement, published in the Federal 
Register on November 28, 2001.
    The Proposed Final Judgement as written is not in the public 
interest. I urge the Department to pursue remedies substantially 
different from those proposed, whether via further negotiations with 
Microsoft, or through adversarial proceedings. If the settlement is 
presented to the District Court without substantial modification, I 
would urge Judge Kollar-Kotelly make a determination under the 
Tunney Act that the Proposed Final Judgement would not serve the 
public interest.
    The Proposed Final Judgement Would Do Positive Harm It may seem 
odd to suggest that an antitrust remedy could be positively harmful. 
After all, regardless of the remedy, a convicted monopolist cannot 
leave an antitrust proceeding with more rights than it had when it 
arrived, and usually leaves with fewer. However, a poor remedy can 
indeed leave the public in a situation worse than the status quo 
ante. The current Proposed Final Judgement does so, in two ways.
    First, the PFJ describes, permits, and envisions specific future 
conduct on the part of Microsoft that would itself be 
anticompetitive. By providing implicit government endorsement for 
this conduct, the PFJ would make it difficult for the Department, 
the States, or private third parties to bring proceedings against 
Microsoft to curb it at a later date. Second, the PFJ contains 
enforcement provisions whose primary practical effect would be to 
delay and reduce the likelihood of further action should the company 
continue to behave unlawfully. In other words, while the Proposed 
Final Judgement does place Microsoft under some new constraints, it 
places the DOJ and other potential litigants under even greater 
constraint. The net effect would be a diminishment rather than an 
increase in deterrence of Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior.
    PFJ Explicitly Permits Continued Anticompetitive Practices The 
purpose of the Proposed Final Judgement is to remedy Microsoft's 
unlawful conduct, specifically its unlawful maintenance of a 
monopoly in Intel-compatible PC operating systems. The reasoning 
behind the Court of Appeals upholding of the monopoly maintenance 
claim centered on the idea that there is an ``applications 
barrier to entry'' to operating system markets, but that this 
barrier to entry could plausibly be chipped away at by a class of 
applications referred to as ``middleware''. The Court held 
that Microsoft engaged in various practices to ``protect[] 
Microsoft's monopoly from the competition that middleware might 
otherwise present'', in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman 
Act. It is these practices that must be remedied. In particular, the 
Court held that by virtue of restrictive contracts with computer 
manufacturers (``OEMs''), internet providers 
(``IAPs''), software companies (``ISVs'') and by 
other means, Microsoft impeded the widespread distribution of 
middleware that might have threatened its monopoly.
    Section III.C.3 of the Proposed Final Judgement forces Microsoft 
to allow OEMs to automatically launch non-Microsoft middleware at 
the end of a PCs boot sequence, but only ``if a Microsoft 
Middleware Product that provides similar functionality would 
otherwise be launched automatically at that time''. By this 
caveat, the PFJ endorses a restriction in an OEM licensing agreement 
that would otherwise constitute a violation of Section 2 of the 
Sherman Act under the Court of Appeals'' reasoning. The caveat 
is anticompetitive on two counts. First, it permits Microsoft to 
``choose its battles'': Microsoft need only face 
challenges from automatically launched middleware where the company 
feels its own offerings have an advantage. Should a competitor 
create an innovative middleware product that would threaten 
Microsoft's applications barrier to entry, Microsoft can prevent its 
distribution as a default running service indefinitely, by simply 
not fielding an offering of its own or by quietly integrating but 
not trademarking its offering (see the definition of a 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'', PFJ, Section 
VI.K.2.b.iii). Secondly, the caveat necessarily permits competing 
middleware only if OEMs include Microsoft's offering as well, since 
by definition (again, PFJ, Section VI.K.2) a Microsoft Middleware 
Product is a part of a Windows Operating System Product. The Appeals 
Court noted several reasons why OEMs are reluctant to include two 
products of the similar functionality in a default installation, 
including customer confusion; increased support and testing costs; 
and that it is a ``questionable use of the scarce and valuable 
space on a PCs hard drive.'' (the Appeals Court quoting the 
District Court's Findings of Fact) These considerations are cited by 
the Court in holding unlawful and exclusionary OEM contracts that 
forced a choice of including Microsoft middleware alone or Microsoft 
middleware plus a similar competitor. Additionally, even when 
competitive middleware is preinstalled alongside Microsoft's 
offering, ``network effects'' would put any one of several 
non-ubiquitous occasionally installed competitors at a serious 
disadvantage with respect to offering by Microsoft, even if 
inferior, that is guaranteed to be present on all installations. 
Should Microsoft force an ``ours or both'' decision with 
respect to competing middleware as a condition of OEM Windows 
licensing, it would most certainly be anticompetitive. However, it 
would also be explicitly sanctioned by the Proposed Final Judgement, 
and therefore difficult for the government or a third party to 
oppose. [1]
    To the degree that Section III.C might have any effect in 
allowing OEMs to integrate third party middleware with a Microsoft 
OS, Section III.H.3 largely eviscerates the hazard to the monopolist 
by foreseeing a mechanism by which the company's operating systems 
could ask end-users to confirm an alteration or undoing of OEM 
additions to the OS fourteen days after the consumer first turns on 
a PC. For example, under this section, an operating system would be 
permitted to present a dialog box stating, ``Windows has 
detected that this configuration has been modified from Microsoft-
recommended defaults. This may lead to incompatibilities or system 
faults. [Correct Now?] [Cancel]'' Clicking ``Correct 
Now?'' would replace OEM-installed non-Microsoft middleware 
with Microsoft's offering. If faced with the question, a court might 
determine that such a presentation (which Microsoft's competitors 
would be unable to make) would constitute unlawful monopoly 
maintenance by Microsoft. But it would be difficult for the 
government or for a private litigator to make that case in the face 
of a Final Judgement that clearly endorses the conduct. The problems 
thus far mentioned are not unique. The

[[Page 27700]]

Proposed Final Judgement is riddled with ``loopholes'' 
that not only make it a weak remedy, but that foresee and allow 
specific behavior by Microsoft that in the absence the Final 
Judgement would be actionable. By complicating potential future 
public or private antitrust enforcement against Microsoft, the 
Proposed Final Judgement would encourage misconduct and do positive 
harm to competition in the software industry.
    PFJ Specifically Discriminates Against ``Open Source'' 
Competition Over the past several years, a novel approach to 
software development known as ``open source'' has risen to 
prominence. Under the ``open source'' development model, 
many widely dispersed individuals, businesses, and other entities 
collaborate in the production of complex software products, 
contributing to what over time has become a rich commons of 
collectively authored software. ``Open source'' software 
is made available free of charge, under licenses that permit 
widespread redistribution and modification by users, sometimes with 
the restriction that any derived works must be made available to the 
public under the same terms.
    The business model that supports the continued development of 
open source software remains to be fully understood. The licensing 
terms of open source software prevent the exploitation by authors of 
any limited monopoly that would enable them to profitably 
``sell'' software as traditional software vendors, such as 
Microsoft, have done.
    Nevertheless, a wide variety of actors including individual 
hobbyists, multinational companies, public and private universities, 
governments, and nongovernmental organizations have found sufficient 
incentive to invest substantial amounts of time and money into the 
production of open source software. In the face of Microsoft's 
successful and unlawful monopoly maintenance, very few traditional 
software vendors still stand as competitors in the company's core 
market of Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Behemoths like IBM 
and scrappy upstarts like Be, Inc. have battled to gain a 
fingerhold, but failed to make any headway at all, and their 
products (IBM's OS/2, Be's BeOS) have all but faded from the 
computing landscape. The only non-Microsoft operating system that 
has managed to grow its share dramatically despite Microsoft's well-
established pattern of anticompetitive behavior is the open source 
operating system Linux. Other open source projects that have 
competed effectively with Microsoft include Samba (which provides 
Windows interoperable file and print services to computer networks) 
and Apache (the most popular web server on the Internet).
    It appears that the open source development model is somewhat 
resistant to the sort of anticompetitive behavior that has been 
effective for Microsoft in the past. One might even argue that the 
explosion of open source software over the past few years is a 
response by businesses, developers, and users to an artificially 
straitened ``traditional'' software landscape, and is 
perhaps attributable at least in part to Microsoft's anticompetitive 
behavior. As traditional vendors have receded from whole categories 
of software under the self-fulfilling truism that competing with 
Microsoft is akin to suicide, many entities have for one reason or 
another decided that the cost of contributing a small portion to the 
development of alternatives is less than the direct costs (continual 
licensing fees) and indirect costs (the failings of software not 
adequately tailored to their needs; uncertainty and future costs 
created by vendor lock-in) associated with relying on Microsoft 
products.
    Regardless of the whys, open source software now stands as one 
of the few sources of effective competition against Microsoft. 
Indeed, while many of the battles that prompted the Justice 
Department's action against Microsoft are now past and prologue 
(e.g. the ``browser wars'' between Netscape and 
Microsoft), the struggles between open source Linux and Windows in 
the server space and between open source Apache and Microsoft's IlS 
remains, among many others, remain active and fierce. [2] Any remedy 
to Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior that diminishes the 
likelihood that open source projects can effectively interoperate 
with and compete against Microsoft's offerings would harm 
competition in the software industry. Unfortunately, the Proposed 
Final Judgement in several places explicitly permits Microsoft to 
discriminate against open source competitors.
    Importantly for open source developers, Sections III.D and III.E 
of the Proposed Final Judgement would obligate Microsoft to disclose 
APIs, communication protocols, and documentation that might be 
required to interoperate with a Windows Operating System product. 
However, the caveats of Sections III.I and III.J restrict these 
earlier sections, and would allow Microsoft to essentially exclude 
open source competitors from access to or the use of this 
information.
    For the disclosure requirements of Sections III.D and III.E to 
have any effect, competitors must be able to use the information 
disclosed to develop and distribute competing and/or interoperating 
products.
    However, Section III.I foresees a regime under which the 
disclosed information must be licensed, as it continues to be the 
proprietary, intellectual property of Microsoft. Section III.I 
guarantees ``reasonable and non-discriminatory terms'' for 
such licensing, based on the payment of ``royalties or other 
payment of monetary consideration''. However, ``reasonable 
and non-discriminatory'' commercial terms inherently 
discriminate against open source software, which by virtue of its 
licensing must be freely distributable and modifiable. Under 
ordinary circumstances, a company certainly should have the right to 
offer use of its proprietary technology only under commercial 
license, and this would legitimately prevent those who might wish to 
distribute open source applications based on that technology from 
doing so. But in the case of a company that has a monopoly over a 
substantial portion of the computing world and that has maintained 
that monopoly through unlawful anticompetitive conduct, allowing it 
to require competitors to pay even ``reasonable'' 
licensing fees in order to interoperate with its monopoly product 
provides the monopolist with unjustifiable reward for its 
misbehavior. In Microsoft's case, permitting such licensing is 
particularly insidious, because even if it were to provide licensing 
of its putative IP on absurdly generous terms, for example if it 
were to levy a royalty of 1 cent per thousand copies, it would 
immediately exclude what in the present real world are currently its 
most tenacious competitors from any possibility of interoperating 
with its software. By permitting ``reasonable and non-
discriminatory'' commercial licensing of technologies the use 
of which is required in order to compete against and interoperate 
with Microsoft technologies, the Proposed Final Judgement condones 
and foresees a practice that would exclude and discriminate against 
important open source competitors.
    Section III.J restricts the scope of the PFJ disclosure 
requirements where security technologies (``anti-piracy, anti-
virus, software licensing, digital rights management, [and] 
encryption or authentication systems'') are concerned. 
Unfortunately, in today's networked world, no software is untouched 
by security concerns, and any non-trivial internet application must 
make use of and interoperate With encryption and authentication 
systems. Further, non-disclosure of security-critical techniques and 
protocols is unnecessary: the professional computer security 
community is nearly unanimous in its disavowal of the notion of 
``security through obscurity''. A well-designed system 
should be secure even in the face of an attacker who fully 
understands the algorithms and protocols used to enforce the 
security. This is not as difficult as it sounds: the academic 
literature is filled with encryption algorithms and protocols that 
have never been broken despite massive peer-review, and even some 
that are ``provably secure''. Historically, non-disclosure 
of security techniques in software has more often served to provide 
cover for shoddy work than to even arguably enhance security. 
``Security by trade secret'' is invariably broken, 
because, invariably, secret techniques are not subjected to 
sufficient peer review, and weak secret techniques can be reverse-
engineered and then compromised. (See the recent history of CSS, a 
once-secret, easily broken, scheme for protecting DVDs, for a 
topical case-in-point.) Microsoft has a particularly poor security 
record, with respect to both the inadequate security of its 
products, and its attempts to restrict disclosure in hopes of 
covering up embarrassing lapses.
    Open source software, in general, has a much better reputation 
for security, owing in large part to the fact that security 
algorithms in open source software are necessarily published, and 
are therefore subject to widespread review. Thus it is ironic that 
Section III.J.2 of the Proposed Final Judgement explicitly allows 
Microsoft to condition disclosure of security-sensitive technologies 
to those who ``meet[] reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business''. Since most

[[Page 27701]]

open source software projects are not developed or 
``owned'' by any one business, and since the terms of open 
source licensing often require disclosure of source code, III.J.2 
effectively excludes open source software from any access to 
protocols, APIs, and other information that might be required to 
interoperate with or compete against Microsoft products that include 
a security component. Any significant application now must have 
security designed into it, so Section III.J.2 could be used to 
effectively lock open source competitors out of the disclosure 
requirements of the Proposed Final Judgement. It would be difficult 
to oppose Microsoft in court for discriminating against its 
troublesome open source competitors when the discrimination is based 
on the language of a court-sanctioned Final Judgement.
    PFJ ``Enforcement Mechanisms'' Would Hinder Effective 
Enforcement The following portions of the Proposed Final Judgement 
would hinder effective enforcement of the agreement: ï¿½ 
Section IV.B provides for the appointment of a Technical Committee 
to ``assist in enforcement and compliance'' with the PFJ. 
The constitution and role of the ``TC'' is described in 
detail. The Technical Committee would oversee Microsoft's compliance 
with the agreement in an ongoing way, and would respond to 
complaints from the plaintiffs or third parties. However, the 
Technical Committee has no power other than to assist in Voluntary 
Dispute Resolution, and, according to Section IV.D.4.d, ``No 
work product, findings, or recommendation by the TC may be admitted 
in any enforcement proceeding before the Court for any purpose, and 
no member of the TC shall testify by deposition, in court or before 
any other tribunal regarding any matter related to this Final 
Judgement.'' ï¿½ Section IV.A. I requires that ``the 
plaintiff States shall form a committee to coordinate their 
enforcement of this Final Judgement. A plaintiff State shall take no 
action to enforce this Final Judgement without first consulting with 
the United States and the plaintiff States'' enforcement 
committee.'' ï¿½ Section VIII explicitly excludes third 
parties from taking any role in the enforcement of the Proposed 
Final Judgement.
    Let us be perfectly clear: At the end of the day, the Proposed 
Final Judgement provides the United States and each of the plaintiff 
States with a right to sue to enforce its terms. But let's also be 
honest: the choice by a State of whether or when to enter into 
complex antitrust litigation against a well-known and well-heeled 
opponent is politically fraught under the best of circumstances. 
Under the terms of the PFJ, an unsatisfied plaintiff would be faced 
with two bad options: 1) the plaintiff can expend resources on a 
dispute resolution mechanism (the ``TC'') that the PFJ 
endorses, but that has no power, cannot be used at all as a basis 
for further proceedings, and will have no effect unless an amicable 
resolution is reached; or 2) eschew the dispute resolution mechanism 
endorsed by the settlement, thereby facing accusations of burdening 
Court resources unnecessarily, as well as a politically treacherous 
``consulting'' process that would predictably lead to 
accusations of judicial over zealousness by reluctant former co-
plaintiffs. A reasonable non-judicial enforcement mechanism would 
serve as a basis for judicial enforcement if required. Instead, the 
PFJ creates a ``middle path to nowhere'', that increases 
the political difficulty of undertaking any binding action against 
the company.
    Under the PFJ, the real-world probability that misbehavior on 
Microsoft's part would bring legal consequences would be less than 
without the proposed enforcement mechanisms. Thus, the Proposed 
Final Judgement does positive harm to the public. Complex, Vague, 
and Contradictory Language Hides New Anticompetitive Tools For 
Microsoft The ostensible purpose of Section II1.1 of the Proposed 
Final Judgement is to require that Microsoft license under 
``reasonable and non-discriminatory terms'' intellectual 
property that software vendors and other parties might require in 
order to offer middleware products interoperable with Windows. If 
the wording were less vague (and if ``reasonable and non-
discriminatory'' were changed to ``royalty free'' to 
include open source developers), this would be a serious and 
legitimate remedy: Having unlawfully restricted the development of 
competing middleware, it is fair that Microsoft be compelled to 
license, under generous terms, whatever intellectual property 
nascent competitors would find necessary to interoperate with 
Windows.
    However, the wording of this section is astonishingly vague. 
Microsoft may be compelled to license its IP to ``ISVs, IHVs, 
IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs'' only as required to ``exercise 
options and alternatives expressly provided to them under this Final 
Judgement''. Exactly what ``options and 
alternatives'' are provided to these parties by the Proposed 
Final Judgement is not a matter of scientific clarity, even to the 
avid reader of the document. What is crystal clear, however, is that 
those to whom the PFJ purports to offer this relief-- the 
alphabet soup of third parties--have absolutely no standing to 
enforce (and therefore to enlist a Court's aid in interpreting and 
clarifying) this or any other section of the Proposed Final 
Judgement (Section VIII of the PFJ, see above).
    Further, in an astonishing twist, Section 111.1.5 exacts the 
remedy of compulsory licensing not only of the convicted monopolist, 
but of innocent competitors seeking relief. Section 111.1.5 insists 
that a software vendor who wishes to provide a middleware product 
for a Microsoft operating system, if they require access to 
Microsoft IP to interoperate, must license to Microsoft its own 
intellectual property. The following language is no doubt intended 
to soothe competitors: ``[T]he scope of such license shall be 
no broader than is necessary to insure that Microsoft can provide 
such options or alternatives'' (Sec 111.1.5). However, nowhere 
in the PFJ have I been able to discern any ``options and 
alternatives'' that Microsoft must provide to any third parties 
that would require a license on its part. Microsoft must merely 
permit practices that it has heretofore managed to prevent, in part 
by refusing to license its own IP, and it must disclose some of what 
it has heretofore kept secret. The requirements of Section 111.1.5 
unnecessarily and specifically envision a situation where a 
competitor, attempting to interoperate with Windows in ways that 
arguably would require some license of IP from Microsoft, could be 
asked to license its own IP to Microsoft, or else to cease and 
desist. If Microsoft and the putative competitor were to disagree 
about what ``no broader than necessary'' means, a 
competitor could not enlist any court to resolve the dispute and 
compel licensing under the PFJ. Thus, the PFJ sets up a situation 
where Microsoft could ``leverage'' an interoperability 
requirement by a competitor or ISV in order to acquire access to the 
attractive IP of its competitors. In the absence of the PFJ, a court 
might look at a ``we'll show you ours only if you show us 
yours'' requirement as anticompetitive, given that Windows 
Operating Systems are a de jure monopoly with which many third 
parties must interoperate or die. However, the Proposed Final 
Judgement gives cover to the practice by explicitly foreseeing and 
sanctioning a cross-licensing requirement, diminishing the 
likelihood of a successful outcome and increasing the burden in 
litigation for companies that may find themselves in the crosshairs 
of Microsoft's IP lawyers. Again, the public is positively harmed by 
the PFJ, because it diminishes the likelihood of legal consequences 
should Microsoft engage in foreseeable anticompetitive behavior.
    Conclusion
    A District Court found, and a Federal Court of Appeals, 
affirmed, that Microsoft engaged over a period of years in multiple 
unlawful and sometimes deceptive practices in order to maintain its 
monopoly on PC-compatable operating systems. The fruits of this 
illegally maintained monopoly have been and continue to be huge for 
the company and its principals. The Proposed Final Judgement fails 
to provide any strong remedy for this conduct, and instead shelters 
the monopolist from potential consequences of past and future 
misconduct.
    The Proposed Final Judgment, by providing court sanction to 
practices a court might well find to be anticompetitive absent the 
proposed settlement, leaves consumers, competitors, open source 
software developers, and other interested parties in a worse 
position than they would be in if Microsoft were simply left to face 
private litigation as a de jure monopolist without any specific 
remedy being imposed in the present case. The Proposed Final 
Judgement would therefore be harmful to the public interest, and, 
unless it is very substantially modified, it should be rejected.
    Notes
    [1] Section III.C.1 suffers from the same flaw. It permits OEMs 
to install ``icons, shortcuts, and menu entries'' for pre-
installed, competing middleware, but ``Microsoft may restrict 
an OEM from displaying icons, shortcuts, and menu entries for any 
product in any list of such icons, shortcuts, or menu entries 
specified in the Windows documentation as being limited to products 
that provide particular types of functionality, provided that the 
restrictions are non-discriminatory with respect to non-Microsoft 
and Microsoft products.'' Microsoft

[[Page 27702]]

would be freed again to create an ``ours or both'' 
situation, justified by language it could graft into contracts 
directly from the Proposed Final Judgement.
    [2] For an informal measure of the perceived threat that open 
source software presents to Microsoft's monopoly, we might examine 
the lengths to which Microsoft has gone in disparaging such software 
recently. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballruer has called Linux ``a 
cancer'' [Chicago Sun-Times, June 1, 2001 ] that has ``the 
characteristics of communism.'' [The Register, August 2, 2000] 
Ballmet has explicitly described Linux as ``threat number 
1.'' [upside.com, January 20, 2001] According to the public 
comments of Microsoft exec Jim Allchin, ``Open source is an 
intellectual property destroyer... I'm an American, I believe in the 
American Way. I worry if government encourages open source, and I 
don't think we've done enough education of policy makers to 
understand the threat.'' [CNet news.com, February 15, 2001] 
[URLs: http://www.suntimes.com/output /tech/cst-fin-micro-01.html; 
http://www.theregister.co.uk /content/1/12266.html; http://
www.upside.com/texis/mvm/news/ story?id = 3a5e392ca3; http://
news.com.com/2100- 1001-252681.html?legacy=cnet]
    [signed Steven Waldman]



MTC-00025809

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Good grief, how much longer is this charade going to go on! 
Leave one the most productive, efficient and innovative company in 
the world alone. Microsoft should be given thanks and awards for 
single handedly standardizing the PC world and increasing this 
country--and the world's--productivity. Let the cry babies 
who couldn't compete and would have balkanized the PC world, to the 
detriment of all, get on with business today.
    Gene Dinovo



MTC-00025810

From: Rob Short
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a person in the technology field, I believe a remedy should 
be obtained for Microsoft's illegal practices with all due haste. 
These illegal practices were well established in the last court case 
involving Judge Jackson and we have only to find an appropriate 
remedy. Microsoft's behavior has consistently smothered innovation 
in many areas by establishing themselves as the de facto standard 
through the leveraging of their Windows OS rather than product 
quality. Further, they have leveraged their position by not allowing 
3rd party software to run properly on the Windows OS and thorugh 
intimidation tactics towards rival companies.
    America depends upon the free market and innovation to be 
competitive. Please act quickly and decisively in this matter. The 
remedy may determine how well America leads technology in the 
decades to come.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Short



MTC-00025811

From: Nan F Posnick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:28am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please accept the settlement as is:
    [email protected]



MTC-00025812

From: Lane Schwartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Lane Schwartz. I am a United States citizen, resident 
of 207 W. Iowa St, Greenfield, Iowa; I am currently pursuing a 
Master's degree in Computer Speech, Text, and Internet Technology at 
the University of Cambridge in Cambridge, England. I have a B.A. in 
Computer Science from Luther College, Decorah, Iowa. This email is 
directed to the U.S. Department of Justice as my public commentary 
on the United States vs. Microsoft, as per the Tunney Act. 
**************
    I believe the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) in United States 
vs. Microsoft to be fundamentally and fatally flawed. The Judgement, 
as it stands, will not prevent Microsoft from enjoying the fruits of 
their illegal and anti-competitive policies. Nor will it stiffle 
future anti-competitive behavior from Microsoft. **************
    I have followed the above case with keen interest for the past 
several years. I am a programmer and computer researcher, and as 
such the anti-competitive actions that Microsoft has engaged in have 
affected me personally even more than the average computer user. I 
have had to deal with the effects of Microsoft creating their own 
proprietary version of Java. I have been unable to fully reap the 
fruits of Sun's competitve, cross-platform technology because of the 
many web designers who (knowingly or not) wrote applets for 
distribution via the web that will only run on Microsoft Windows.
    I wish to state that the PFJ as it stands is unacceptable. I 
have read many of the relevant documents in this case, and I believe 
that the current PFJ will be a mere slap on the wrist of a convicted 
monopolist. I agree with the issues put forth by Dan Kegel of 
Codeweavers.com (http://crossover.codeweavers.com/mirror/
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html).
    I also wish to put my support behind the alternate judgements 
proposed by the several states in this case.
    Please do not sell out to Microsoft in this case. They have 
committed a serious crime. Do not let them get away with a light 
remedy. Do not ignore the thousands of developers who wish 
desparately to create competitive products, but are prevented by the 
fear of unknown and undisclosed Microsoft software patents. Do not 
ignore the would-be competors.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Lane Schwartz
    email: [email protected]
    permanent address:
    207 W. Iowa St.
    Greenfield, IA 50849



MTC-00025813

From: Robin Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can't believe that more hasn't been done to resolve this 
issue. You let this company get away with stealing from the American 
people. People who shoplift a candybar get more of a handslap than 
Microsoft has recieved. They have made it virtually impossible to 
for any good company to compete by not allowing companies that sell 
computers sell anything but windows on their machines and on top of 
that if you purchase a machine from a company like this you need to 
take what it has you don't even have the option of getting it 
without an OS. Please review what a catastophic lack of justice this 
is.
    Robin E. Hall



MTC-00025814

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please allow Microsoft to continue their business and allow them 
to bring us new technology. If they developed the operating system, 
software, and Windows, they should be allowed to market it and make 
a profit. I believe the other companies could not do the same so 
they sued in order to bring Microsoft down. I use Windows and all 
the software and I am very happy with it and would not buy anything 
else.
    [email protected]



MTC-00025815

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR, 
[email protected]@inetgw.Ralph@essen...
Date: 1/26/02 6:49am
Subject: Microsoft Jihad: Congrats New Profit Dubya CC: 
[email protected]@ 
inetgw,[email protected]@i...



MTC-00025815-0002

    ``The Microsoft PR machine told me it's time stop joking 
for minute and do something to token earn my $ billions of annual 
net profit. My belief is that Clinton administration were infidels 
and I'm happy to declare NEW profit Dubya to take up preaching where 
old profit Ronnie Reagan left off, peace be with him. And mother 
Barbara get free Windows upgrade for well handled silver spoon, and 
Kenny Boy too for teaching me the DC shuffle, ha ha ha... Dallah be 
thanked.''



MTC-00025816

From: Darrell Simon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a U.S. citizen and resident of Texas. The proposed 
settlement with microsoft fails on the following points:
    1) Restoration of a competitive operating systems environment. 
The remedy seems to perpetuate Microsoft's monopoly power, not 
nullify it. This settlement isn't going to breathe new life into the 
desktop OS market.
    2) Protection of the consumer. A monopoly can be legitimately 
maintained in a free

[[Page 27703]]

market by a combination of the lowest price and the best features. I 
can buy a ``professional'' distribution of Linux for $75 
that includes 6 cds of software--development tools, databases, 
an office suite, two different desktop environments. For Windows XP 
Home edition, I have to pay $99 [to upgrade--$150 to purchase 
new] and I get an applications environment, a web browser and some 
media tools (on 1 cd).
    If I want to run Windows XP Pro, I have to pay between $200-$300 
depending on whether I am upgrading or purchasing it new. XP Pro 
adds some server-capability software. If I want office applications, 
I have to pay $200-$500 for Office XP (depending upon which 
applications I need to use) For development tools, I would pay $250 
for a C++ compiler, $1000 for the entire ``Visual Studio'' 
line from microsoft.
    Let's re-iterate: Linux Professional Environment--$75, 
Microsoft Professional Environment--$1800, Oh, and with Linux, 
I can run it on as many machines as I own. With windows, I need to 
pay again for each machine I have in my house. This is not free-
market pricing; this is monopoly pricing. The final settlement 
doesn't redress the monopoly situation, the final settlement 
preserves the monopoly.
    If the final settlement is going to preserve the monopoly, can't 
it at least soften the blow to my pocketbook somehow?
    Here are some alternate remedies: 1. Set a price ceiling for 
Microsoft Software: Tie the price for Microsoft Software to 2 times 
the price for Linux. Make sure that their software distribution 
contains what Linux does. I'd gladly pay $150 to get all the 
Microsoft Suite of software (i.e. Windows XP, Office XP, Visual 
Studio ). So would a lot of people. At that rate, Microsoft might 
get people to upgrade more often, rather than waiting as long as 
possible to avoid paying their monopolistic gouge price. It's not a 
free market solution, but, hey, they're the ones who abused the 
market system and contracts to preserve their monopoly position.
    2. Free upgrade for all (U.S) users. Windows XP only sold 17 
million copies in its first quarter (source:Microsoft 2Q FY2002 
earnings release). What's wrong with the other 200 million of us 
that haven't upgraded yet? We get an upgrade, they get to stop 
supporting Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000 and ME. No, this doesn't really 
redress the problems of their competitors, but at least everybody 
gets a good software upgrade, right? What will this cost them? I can 
buy a writable CD for $.09. I'm sure they get theirs for cheaper. 
For 200 million copies, their material outlay is only $20 million. 
The Microsoft Second quarter FY2002 earnings release indicates that 
they spent $660 million dollars in the quarter on lawyers. This is 
like a drop in the bucket for them. Spare me the boxed 
packaging-- just give me the CD.
    3. Different Licensing Model One person, one license for 
microsoft software, one fee for all of it. I have two computers at 
home (two different Windows vintages). At work I have two different 
work areas, each with a different desktop machine (One Windows NT, 
one Windows 2000). I sometimes use a laptop (Win 98). I work with 
people who use PDAs (Windows CE). In a given day, I might have 
contact with 4-6 different copies of Microsoft windows 
software, not to mention other applications. Between me and my 
company, we pay Microsoft 4-6 times for one person. We should 
set up a different licensing model so that between me and my 
company, we aren't paying for microsoft on 6 different copies of the 
same software because we are running multiple machines that I happen 
to touch every day.
    This solution doesn't break the monopoly, either. But it might 
protect the Microsoft customers against multiple license payments 
for the same user to use the same tools on different machines. This 
probably still lets Bill & Co make fists full of dollars.
    Ok. So, I don't know if any of my suggestions are the holy 
grail, and of course lawyers would have to pound on all of these to 
make them work. But... The current settlement doesn't do a damn 
thing for the consumer/end user, doesn't end Microsoft's monopoly 
power, doesn't dilute that power much and probably won't solve 
anything.
    Thanks for listening
    -Darrell Simon
    I know this is a simplistic suggestion, but, look, anyone who 
can afford to spend $660 million in a single quarter on lawsuits is 
going to find some type of loophole in any ``fair'' 
settlement (or rather, build in a loophole and get you to sign).



MTC-00025817

From: raidergr8
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Netscape is not stuggling because Internet Explorer is bundled 
with the Windows OS. Netscape is struggling because they suck. You 
don't sue your neighbor because he hired a better architect than you 
and built a better house. The government needs to start levying some 
heavy fines on these companies that want to sue other companies for 
``building a better mouse trap''. AOL has 32 million 
subscribers and they have merged with Time Warner Cable, they are 
closer to being a Monopoly than Microsoft ever thought of being.
    Ray Hedger



MTC-00025818

From: Keith Velleux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Public Comment on Proposed Final Judgment for United States v. 
Microsoft Corp., Civil No. 98-1232
    I. Table of Contents
    I. TABLE OF CONTENTS
    II. PERCEIVED PROBLEMS IN THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
    A. DOES NOT ?RESTORE COMPETITIVE THREAT? IN THE OS MARKET
    B. NO SPECIFICATION OF FAIR & REASONABLE PUNISHMENT
    C. HIGHLY DEPENDANT ON DEFINITION
    D. SUSCEPTIBLE TO SUBVERSION BY MICROSOFT ?INNOVATION?
    E. NEEDED INFORMATION FOR MIDDLEWARE DEVELOPMENT NOT GUARANTEED
    F. MSDN FOR DOCUMENTATION DISTRIBUTION
    G. PLAINTIFF?S DESIRE FOR TIMELY RESOLUTION
    III. POSSIBLE ADDITIONS TO THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
    A. SYSTEM FOR WINDOWS APPLICATION INTEROPERABILITY IN NON-
WINDOWS
    OSES
    B. QUALITY STANDARD FOR APIS BUNDLED WITH WINDOWS OS
    C. FAIR & REASONABLE PUNISHMENT (FINES, ETC.)
    IV. GENERAL COMMENTS
    A. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION & QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 
SUBSTITUTES OF TIED GOODS
    B. DOJ PLAINTIFF NOT BEING AGGRESSIVE
    II. Perceived Problems in the Proposed Final Judgment
    A. Does not ?restore competitive threat? in the OS market
    The Competitive Impact Statement claims to restore the 
competitive threat that middleware products posed to Microsoft. 
Nowhere does it try to restore the competitive threat of an OS 
competitor.
    B. No specification of fair & reasonable punishment The 
Proposed Final Judgment does not call for any fines, imprisonment, 
or recovery of court costs. At the minimum, court costs should be 
recovered.
    C. Highly dependant on definition Microsoft has demonstrated an 
ability to position itself so to take advantage of loopholes in 
terminology of contracts.
    D. Susceptible to subversion by Microsoft ?innovation? The 
evolution of the consent decree case (1995?) into the contempt case 
(1998) and finally into the Appeals Court ruling on Tying 
demonstrates that Microsoft can use ?innovation? to ?re-shuffle the 
deck? on previously defined arraignments.
    E. MSDN for documentation distribution Is MSDN a zero cost 
source available to the public at large? Linux developers would 
express a need to maintain cost free access.
    III. Possible Additions to the Proposed Final Judgment
    A. System for Windows Application Interoperability in Non-
Windows OSes This addition is similar to the WINE project for Linux. 
The court should order Microsoft to develop for commercial use a 
system that would: Allow ISVs to compile unmodified source code of a 
Windows API program for a different OS using native OS APIs while 
maintaining the look & feel of that OS. Allow end users to 
execute (run) ?shrink-wrapped? Windows API programs on a different 
OS while maintaining, if possible, the look & feel of that OS. 
Include all API sub-sets [Direct-X, MFC (Microsoft Foundation 
Classes), etc.] necessary to compile or execute commercially 
available products. Allow an ISV to use standard Microsoft 
development tools or the development tools of the native OS. 
[Microsoft would need to create both.]
    Be supported and maintained by Microsoft for compatibility with 
new versions of Windows for a 5 year period. [An escape clause based 
on market share is needed.] The OSes to be supported by this system 
would be Mac OS (an injured party referenced in the case), Linux (an 
OS for Intel PCs), Solaris X86 (another OS for Intel PCs), and the 
top

[[Page 27704]]

2 other OSes determined yearly. The source code for this system and 
the system itself is the property of the OS owner, Apple Computer 
for Mac OS, Linus Torvalds for Linux, Sun Microsystems for Solaris, 
etc. In addition, the OS owners determine the minimum performance 
level the system must demonstrate. The cost to develop and maintain 
this system would count against any fines the court may order.
    The justification of this addition is clearly to lessen the 
?Applications Barrier to Entry? in the OS market and hopefully 
prevent abuse of Microsoft's monopoly.
    B. Quality Standard for APIs bundled with Windows OS This 
addition would order Microsoft to release documentation for all APIs 
(exceptions below) that are used by Windows or any Microsoft 
Middleware or Applications bundled with Windows, four weeks before 
product availability (includes changed and new APIs). This would be 
the basis of a Quality Standard that competitors could use to make 
substitute products. The Quality Standard must be available to the 
public at no cost. The API exception is the same security exception 
as noted in Proposed Final Judgment, but excepted APIs must not 
prevent a competitor from making a substitute product. The 
justification of this addition is clearly to lessen the ?Barrier to 
Entry? in the OS & Middleware markets and hopefully prevent 
abuse of Microsoft's monopoly.
    C. Fair & reasonable punishment (fines, etc.) The Sherman 
Act calls for fines, imprisonment, or both. Also, the Clayton Act 
allows the government to recover the cost of suit. As added 
justification, the court should consider Microsoft's failure to 
supply ?Pro?Competitive Justification? for its actions and 
Microsoft's previous convictions.
    IV. General Comments
    A. Court of Appeals Decision & Quality Standards for 
Substitutes of Tied Goods The modern definition of Quality is 
compliance with requirements. On page 79 of the PDF file of the 
Court of Appeals decision, the court states as part of its decision 
on Tying, ?It is unclear how the benefits from IE APIs could be 
achieved by quality standards for different browser manufacturers.? 
The free software community is full of substitutes for other 
commercial products. Here is an example to add some clarity: There 
exists a commercial graphics manager (manages the windows on a UNIX 
X?Window server) called ?Motif? and a free equivalent (minor 
differences and some bugs) called ?Lesstif?. An application compiled 
with Motif can be executed on a system with only Lesstif installed, 
a clear example of a substitute. In addition, an API is a Quality 
Standard (at least a partial one). American National Standards 
Institute has many standards that specify APIs and computer 
programming languages. Example: ANSI/ISO/IEC 9899-1999 
specifies the C Programming Language that includes functions (APIs).
    B. Plaintiff's desire for timely resolution possibly interfering 
with desire for justice Plaintiff's desire for timely resolution has 
prevented possible determination of further defendant liability, the 
?tying? portion of the case being dropped, etc. This added to the 
difficulty of securing a more server remedy because of less 
liability.



MTC-00025819

From: Ned Fleming
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I very much believe the settlement allows Microsoft to run 
roughshod over smaller OEMs--and thus perpetuating their 
monopoly. I'm also concerned that Microsoft will continues its 
practice of maintaining a secret list of APIs, which only they know 
about.
    Ned Fleming
    1715 SW Crest Dr
    Topeka KS 66604
    Phone--785-273-8435



MTC-00025820

From: PAUL CAP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement,
    It is our belief, that a fair and just settlement has been 
reached and further pursuit of this matter is not needed and will 
not be in the best interest of our Great Country and it's people!
    Sincerely,
    Paul & Carolyn Cap
    612 Pinehurst Ave.
    Placentia CA 92870



MTC-00025822

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:18am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is past time to end he costly Microsoft litigation and let 
the negotiated settlement stand. The public will not be served by 
continuing these lawsuits. Only a few greedy companies and lawyers 
stand to benefit from dragging this on.
    Thank you.



MTC-00025823

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dept. of Justice:
    As a citizen and stockholder of both Micrsoft and AOL, I am 
greatly concerned that the lawsuit recently filed by AOL will hinder 
the settlement of the Micrsoft case. It is time for the government 
to put this case to rest! It should never have been started to begin 
with. What a waste of taxpayers money!!!!
    In addition, the timing of the purchase of Netscape by AOL would 
indicate to me that AOL is simply jumping on the litigation 
bandwagon, rather than putting their time and resource into duking 
it out in the competitive arena....where they should be.
    It is time to get this mess settled and move forward.
    Thank you for your consideration!
    Beryl J. Packer, Ph.D.
    9421 NW 74th Place
    Grimes IA 50111



MTC-00025824

From: Matthew Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I will keep this very brief because I'm sure you have more than 
enough correspondence detailing what I am going to say and I don't 
think I could put it any better than the rest of them. So the bottom 
line is that I (as well as the rest of my immediate family, 3 
registered voters all together) feel that the Microsoft Corp. should 
suffer harsher penalties than the ones proposed by the Justice 
Department. That is all I wanted to convey. Thank you.
    Matthew Taylor



MTC-00025825

From: Igor Alexeff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My personal opinion is that Microsoft has been attacked because 
it is too successful. The whole concept of punishing a company 
because it does its job well is repugnant to me.
    Igor Alexeff



MTC-00025826

From: Ed Hammond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a member of the public, I would just like to add my opinion 
that Microsoft is a horrible monopoly that seeks to control all 
areas of our computing lives, and that strong measures are required 
to break it up and allow for more competition.
    Thanks,
    -Ed Hammond



MTC-00025827

From: isa kocher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear [email protected]:
    The settlement proposed by the Department of Justice leaves 
Microsoft ready willing and able to continue without abatement its 
predatory practices which have seriously undermined any of our most 
creative entrepenuers'' ability to bring new and creative 
products to the market.
    Considering the degree to which Microsoft dominates the retail 
software market, this has had a depressing and inhibiting effect on 
the productivity of our most creative businesses whther of not they 
engage in computer related business. Business and personal software 
is crucial to our nations economy and Microsoft has deliberately and 
illegally interfered with the normal economic growth of our nation. 
Justice must bring the settlementback in line with the seriousness 
of the offense and the predatory instincts of the offender.
    sincerely
    Mr. Isa Kocher
    9513 Buck haven Trail
    Tallahassee FL 32312



MTC-00025828

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 27705]]

    We've been fortunate to have a mind such as Bill Gates in our 
country. Please drop this suit. Competition keeps us on our toes. 
MIcrosoft is known for innovation.
    Enable them to keep going!



MTC-00025829

From: ANDY TURNER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    1/26/02
    This situation withe Microsoft should have never occured !! 
(Thank you Janet Reno / Bill Clinton) It remindes me of the Tobbaco 
Co.'s who are legal tax paying companies with large pockets that the 
Federal Government and many State Governments looked at as CASH 
COW'S to help fill their cash straped coffers. ``If there was a 
real problem with them, then they should be outlawed...but no, they 
want the TAXES.'' In Microsoft's case, it's competitors who 
couldn't keep up or wanted to sell items to the COMPUTING PUBLIC, 
couldn't because Microsoft was giveing / including them in it's 
packages.
    Do the Federal or State Governments want to kill Microsoft ? No. 
They just want to legaly pick it's pockets to cover their shortages 
in their treasuries from poor management!
    What's next??....MacDonalds and Fast Foods for fat content, Beer 
& Soft drink companies. Does the Government think that everyone 
is stupid and incapable of being responsible for their own actions?
    Adults are not children, but they are greedy and some will do or 
say anything if they think they can get money from a large company, 
i.e. hot coffee at McDondalds.
    Let's get our hand out of Microsofts pockets !!!!!
    Sincerely,
    Andrew A. Turner



MTC-00025830

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Stanley Janasiewicz, MD
    Rt 2 Box 238A
    Wellborn, FL 32094



MTC-00025831

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:40am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Dept. of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D. C. 20530
    I would like to see the Dept. of Justice settle it's long 
standing antitrust laswsuit against Microsoft. This has been going 
on far too long and it seems the only thing the government and 
states, that have not committed to settle, seem to be holding out 
for is blood.
    The settlement agreed upon in November is fair and the changes 
Microsoft is willing to agree to will ensure a more competitive 
marketplace. I do not know what more the government can ask for.
    I am a Microsoft shareholder and Microsoft's financial success 
affects my financial success. Therefore, with a reasonable 
settlement drafted, I urge you to finalize it without additional 
delay. I've already lost plenty in the enron scandal.
    Sincerely,
    Collette Dobmeier



MTC-00025832

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir:
    I want to register my public comment regarding the proposed 
antitrust settlement. In my opinion it is time to settle this in any 
manner available. Although I think it is excessive, if Microsoft 
agrees to the terms please accept them.
    I believe that the finding of Judge Jackson was one of the 
reasons for the current escalation of the recession. Besides- where 
would we be without Microsoft? Not nearly as advanced technology-
wise as we are.
    When I go to purchase software, I do not see a deficiency of 
other than Microsoft publishers.
    Enough is enough. Too much valuable time and money have been 
wasted on the whole situation.
    Thank you for taking the time to review these comments
    Albert C Ellet
    36 Pond View Drive
    Richboro, PA 18954



MTC-00025833

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:36am
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,
    Lelia P Crandall
    540 S Ranch View Circle 62
    Anaheim Hills, CA 92807-4328



MTC-00025834

From: andy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.
    Andy Bezella
    4305 N DAMEN AVE APT 3W
    CHICAGO, IL 60618-1732



MTC-00025835

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is fair, it 
is far to lenient.



MTC-00025836

From: Kayle Clements
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:35am
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    I am writing to disagree with the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. I believe this company has gone out of its way to 
monopolize the marketplace and keep other computer based businesses 
from competing on a fair level. And the settlement does not impose 
enough restrictions and punishment for their past actions.
    The effects of this monopoly may not be seen for some time to 
come, but it is clear to me that Microsoft has done an extremely 
poor job of self policing in the past. I believe the government 
should step up to the task and regulate Microsoft to be sure that 
these types of practices will no longer be tolerated.
    I believe the best way to accomplish this is to break up 
Microsoft into no less than 2 separate entities. This is the only 
way, in my opinion, to be sure that the company can no longer 
practice the policies that gave Microsoft the monopoly in the first 
place. Please do the right thing.
    Kayle Clements
    3201 12 Mile Road
    Rockford MI 49341



MTC-00025837

From: Mark Lavi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:55am
Subject: My comments on the DOJ-MSFT remedy
    I have a long standing background as a consumer of personal 
computers and online services since the early 80's. Since the early 
90's I have developed a career based on

[[Page 27706]]

Internet media and Internet technology development working for the 
first commercial national ISP, News Corporation, and Netscape 
Communications.
    I feel my comments have a historical and technical perspective 
with an understanding of the issues and business ramifications to 
the technology markets which Microsoft asserts terrible influence 
over already. Firstly: the DOJ case never properly defined terms as 
any computer scientist would do so to separate the ``Operating 
System'' market from the ``Application Software'' 
market. Since an operating system's purpose is merely to provide 
access to the hardware of the computer, it is a low level layer 
which is required for software applications to work--but 
clearly separate, independent, and crucial to all software.
    Because Windows, in all of it's varieties, is an operating 
system and it's market is for anyone with computer 
hardware--it's primary distribution is with computer 
manufacturers (OEM's like Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway, Apple, etc.) It 
has been proven that Microsoft's aggressive business contracts have 
stamped out the competition many years ago, but today prevents any 
competition for operating systems.
    Since Internet Explorere is a software application, it cannot be 
an operating system. If this were not the case, then Internet 
Explorer's primary competition, Netscape Navigator software, would 
logically also be called an operating system. This most certainly is 
not the case. Therefore Internet Explorer is not an operating 
system, Windows distributes Internet Explorer, and this is tying two 
markets together.
    The woeful part is that by bundling Internet Explorer into 
Windows, and now many other software packages: NetMeeting (video 
conferencing software), Backup (media replication), Defragment and 
Compression (disk utility), Windows Media Player (video and audio 
media player), Outlook Express (email software), and Internet 
Explorer (web browser) would name a few of the bundled software 
packages and industries threatened by Microsoft's self-serving 
distribution. Online Services and Fax and Modem software also are 
industries bundled into Windows.
    Microsoft advances it's own technical agendas with these 
products: making them standards by sheer distribution alone. And 
Microsoft wields many of these standards in a proprietary manner, 
preventing competiton for these software packages.
    Worse still: the Internet media (web sites) that these software 
packages promote also are Microsoft owned properties. Internet 
Explorere promotes the MicroSoft Network (msn), Outlook Express 
promotes HotMail (a web email system). The new Windows XP promotes 
photo processing services! How can an operating system imply 
software and web sites? Windows is not Hotmail, but many people will 
likely use Hotmail because they got it with Windows and they may not 
even know that there IS competition on the Internet because 
Microsoft doesn't provide a choice.
    The remedy should be the break up of Microsoft into three 
business units: Operating System, Applications, and Internet/network 
services. Microsoft will negotiate with anyone to bundle all three 
of these business units when they should only promote one at a time. 
They promote all three when they have no business to do so, and they 
prevent competition by doing so. They bully companies and partners 
with threats that they will compete if they do not concede to 
whatever Microsoft wants (equity, technology licensing, 
distribution, etc). This behavior happens today, still. Every 
business contract and deal should be broken apart into three 
separate business units to prevent tying these separate areas.
    Microsoft tries to blend the three technologies (operating 
system, software application, Internet service) together in every 
product offering now. Windows XP is the premier demonstration of 
this. Furthermore, it has left out a key Internet technology by Sun 
Microsystems called Java--which threatens the Windows operating 
system. Java is a key feature of Internet Explorer: it allowed it to 
compete with Netscape Navigator over the past years. Now that 
Netscape Navigator doesn't control much of the market, Microsoft 
will not carry Java because they promote their own proprietary 
technologies and prevent competition for Internet software 
development.
    The technology delivery of this blend of three separate markets 
(OS, software, Internet) is now one business proposition to the 
entire market, no choices allowed or even acknowledged by Microsoft. 
This monopoly is killing the diversity of the economy and technology 
sector. Lastly: Microsoft must not donate software or old computer 
hardware as part of the remedy because this is also self-serving to 
the benefit of Microsoft. The remedy should provide damages and 
money to the states so that they may CHOOSE the best use of the 
settlement (perhaps non-Microsoft solutions!)
    By allowing Microsoft to provide it's own software (which costs 
Microsoft almost nothing to produce and distribute) as value for the 
settlement, the government is distributing Microsoft's monopoly 
further without choice. By allowing Microsoft to provide old 
hardware computers, it distributes obsolete hardware and represents 
a very poor value when compared to the monetary investment that 
should be made in today's current hardware which represents the most 
performance and value in the history of the computer industry.
    I am sorry I have not organized my thoughts better, but I do not 
approve of the horrible outcome that is being granted to Microsoft's 
benefit and the detriment of the computer industry. It will darken 
the entire future of our world and I must speak out.
    Feel free to contact me for clarification or help, --
    --Mark
    Public key attachment for secure e-mail enclosed.
    /-bs/ My opinions are my own, but you 
may share them.
    // mailto:[email protected] http://www.atarex.com



MTC-00025838

From: rod lyman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Consumer interests have been well served by the settlement and 
the time to end this costly and damaging litigation has come. I 
believe that the proposed settlement offers a reasonable compromise 
that will enhance the ability of seniors and all Americans to access 
the internet and use innovative software products to make their 
computer experience easier and more enjoyable.



MTC-00025839

From: Jim Vickers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:12am
Subject: SIR I belive that the government should look at all the 
good that microsoft has done for the world,
    SIR I belive that the government should look at all the good 
that microsoft has done for the world,
    THEREFOR THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT SHOULD COME TO A END AND BE 
DROP .AND PUT A STOP WASTING THE TAX PAYER MONEY.
    THANK YOU MR. JAMES C. VICKERS



MTC-00025840

From: Carlos Guevara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it might concern:
    Through this note I would like to express my concern that many 
special interests are trying their best to derail this settlement, 
in detriment of the economy, the private enterprise and innovation 
in general.
    It is my humble opinion that these same parties are involved in 
a double standard, pushing for a company to be punished for the same 
things that they do on a daily basis.
    For example, NETSCAPE started the process of bundling things 
that had nothing to do with each other when they started bundling a 
WEB BROWSER, with an e-mail client (ever wondered what ever happened 
to clients like pegasus and eudora??) with their 90% market share 
browser. Or including a WEB PAGE EDITOR with the browser.
    SUN on the other hand has been bundling stuff with their 
operating system for years. Now, don't misunderstand me, I think 
bundling things for free is a great practice. In the mid 90s, when 
SUN started bundling a WEB SERVER with their operating system, and a 
web browser called HOT JAVA (yes, very much like what they complain 
that MSFT did), it was a way for small development companies, like 
the one I work at to get access to this resources without having to 
shell out a large amount of money, which small companies cannot 
afford in the early stages of their life.
    If it wasn't for bundling software, the way MSFT DOES, the cost 
of using many of the ``commodity'' software that we take 
for granted now would be much more expensive, and that would not be 
good for the consumer or for the large industry that is software 
development. In fact, there are LAWSUITS against MSFT about how much 
they charged for operating systems, when people like NOVELL, SUN and 
IBM have charged for

[[Page 27707]]

years thousands of dollars for their different operating systems 
(that by the way could be available for free like BSD ad LINUX have 
demonstrated). But it is NOT ok to charge 299 dollars for an 
operating system from MSFT, that also includes a web browser 
(Netscape wanted to charge $49 for the most basic browser), and a 
web server (Nestacape wanted to charge 1000 for their most basic 
server), mail client, media player (Real Networks charges $19 for 
their most basic client).
    As a software developer I CAN ASSURE YOU, that even though MSFT 
started bundlling their browser since version 2 (IE 2.0) on Windows 
95, it wasn't until version 4.01 that I started to consider it as an 
alternative to Netscape. Even though I had to pay 49, 69 and up to 
79 dollars for the NETSCAPE browser, I (and most other people, since 
it wasn't until version 4 that the market share for IE started to 
close the gap with Netscape) because it was better. I didn't stop 
using Netscape because it cost money, I stopped using it when it 
didn't become the best web platform.
    I know for a fact that the software company that I work for, as 
many more in the industry, would not have survived if we had to do 
business in an environment where we had to let people like SUN, 
ORACLE and NETSCAPE to dictate the way of doing things. As a 
developer, I have seen an industry of products that work around the 
MSFT platform thrive. Just look at the number of companies that work 
with MSFTs platform and compare it to the number of companies that 
work with ORACLE and SUN. You will see that in that last 
environment, only BIG players can get in the door. In fact look at 
some of the products that MSFT has bundled in their operating system 
for years, and because those products are not as good as the 
competition, there is still a huge market for those tools, like 
Anti-virus protection, disk defragmenters and the such. MSFT has 
bundled a disk defragmenter with every version of Windows since Win 
95, but still companies like symantec, DiskKeeper and others have 
products that are far better and are still in business. So to 
conclude, let those companies that want to fight MICROSOFT do it on 
the business field, like Symantec and DiskKeeper, RealNetworks and 
many others are doing, and not on the JUDICIAL field where NO ONE 
WILL COME OUT THE WINNER.



MTC-00025841

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    William Mikulski
    3223 Chancellor Drive
    Fort Wayne, IN 46815



MTC-00025843

From: DON K WILLAIMS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I have watched the long drawn out action and believe that 
settlement should be completed at this point as defined by the 
court. I feel that the dammage done to all parties should be 
finalized and everyone move on.
    A tremendous amount of time and money has been expended, however 
I don't see that anyone is better off especially the consummer.
    Closure should be now.
    Sincerely,
    Don K Williams



MTC-00025844

From: gkern
To: microsoft
Date: 1/26/02 8:17am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Microsofts only crime since the beginning of this whole so 
called LEGAL and I use the term loosely, circus, has been to create 
a great company that is good for america and everyone who uses thier 
products.
    Not only are other companies wanting what microsoft has created, 
but so does our gov. microsoft has done no wrong to me or anyone 
else that i know or have talked to. MY GOV. can only find microsoft 
not guilty of wrong doings and let the world of FREE trade go on 
like it should. MY VOTE IS FOR MICROSOFT AND A GREAT 
AMERICAN--BILL GATES
    THANK YOU
    [email protected]



MTC-00025845

From: William Shotts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I have worked in the computer software industry for over 20 
years and I have deep concerns regarding the effectiveness of the 
proposed settlement. In my view and in the view of many others, the 
proposed settlement does little to address the issues raised in the 
findings of facts in this case. I urge you to seek stronger 
sanctions against Microsoft (up to and including structural 
remedies) to insure the future this industry and America's 
technological leadership.
    Thank you.
    William E. Shotts, Jr.
    500 Twinbrook Parkway
    Rockville, Maryland 20851 --
    William Shotts, Jr. (bshotts AT panix DOT com)



MTC-00025846

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:20am
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,
    Vallie Cosper
    3905 Valrico Grove Dr.
    FL 33594



MTC-00025847

From: jean proudfit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The states that wish harsher penalties for Microsoft should be 
told to get lost. Enough already.
    Most of our industry has been driven overseas, should be try to 
drive the rest out. Where has Microsoft harmed the consumer? No 
where.
    Jean Proudfit
    Tampa, Fl.



MTC-00025848

From: Dave Garvie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft suit, and let them get back to 
business.
    Thank you,
    Dave Garvie.



MTC-00025849

From: c
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a software developer who has written for Windows and UNIX 
operating systems, I

[[Page 27708]]

would like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgement in the United 
States vs. Microsoft.
    I understand that the intent of the agreement is to prevent 
microsoft from illegally stifling competition. The current 
settlement will not achieve that goal. Here is one of the many of 
the reasons:
    Many of the definitios are too narrow to be of any effect. For 
example, the definitions of Microsoft Middleware Product and Windows 
Operating System Product are seriously flawed. They explicitly 
include products that Microsoft does not expect to be critical to 
their future and exclude important new products.
    The whole tenor of the document is that of a firm outward 
appearance with a very soft and mushy core. If the document is 
approved as written, I have no doubt that Microsoft will be able to 
continue it's anti-competitive practices virtually undiminished. 
There are so many problems that approval is clearly not in the 
public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Buoy



MTC-00025850

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I strongly support the DOJ Microsoft settlement.
    Robert M. Horner
    2804 Sailors Way
    Naples, FL



MTC-00025851

From: Terry Jendersee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
6148 E Campo Bello Drive
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in full support of the recent settlement between 
Microsoft and the U. S. Department of Justice. The lawsuits have 
been going on for too long now and there could be no benefit for the 
public for them to continue.
    I think the terms of the settlement are fair and reasonable. 
They will also serve to alleviate competitors'' complaints as 
Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers broad new rights to 
configure Windows'' so that non-Microsoft products can be more 
easily promoted. They have also agreed to disclose for use by 
competitors interfaces that are internal to Windows operating system 
products.
    I hope your office see what I believe and that is that our 
economy can afford no further litigation. Please implement the 
settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Terry Jendersee



MTC-00025853

From: Daniel W. Solcher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I want to express my opinion about Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I really want to get this lawsuit to over with, so my 
business can start focusing on Microsoft products and its future 
developments. I understand that Microsoft has done some mistakes, 
but that is in the past. I work at Fortune 10 company, and I rely on 
``future technologies'' to develop today's software for 
the company. It's the future of government that I am concerned about 
that affects Microsoft and my company's position on the computer 
software technologies.
    I ask you to resolve it quickly, accept the settlement, and get 
it out of the Microsoft's way. That will save taxpayer's money, too. 
Also if the settlement is over with, then the sales at Microsoft 
will increase, therefore more tax money to the government.
    Thanks,
    Dan
    Daniel W. Solcher
    [email protected]
    11439 Baltic
    San Antonio, Texas 78213
    Vmail:210-308-9651
    Fax: 210-308-9302 Web: www.solcher.net



MTC-00025854

From: Richard Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:47am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I oppose Florida not joining in the settlement with Microsoft. 
As a consumer I experience firsthand the ``expense'' of 
the breakup for purpose of creating ``competition thereby lower 
costs to consumer'' by the telephone company! That has not 
happened. I now pay $15-$20 more a month to a local phone company 
who charges me long-distance fees within my local area. I live in 
the Tampa area and to call friends, transact normal, everyday 
business, or call restaurants for reservations I pay long distance 
fees.
    My geographic area is similar to the Washington D.C area where 
you live in Virginia but call friends and businesses in Maryland and 
Washington DC The breakup of the ``phone monopoly'' did me 
no favors.
    Also while traveling it is impossible, from some phone 
companies, to reach your long-distance carrier and you end up paying 
$3.00-$6.00 per minute for a call. Every home computer owner 
struggles with keeping their system up--to-date with software 
and making ``compatibility'' even more dispersed and 
conflicted will certainly not be helpful and will cost more in the 
long run. I can only imagine what a breakup of Microsoft will do to 
the business community! Please encourage those involved in this 
decision to leave well enough alone.
    Barbara Carlson,
    Plant City,
    Florida



MTC-00025855

From: Jem Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I would like to voice my opinion that the proposed Microsoft 
settlement be rejected. I have been reading up on various details of 
the settlement, and I believe that as proposed the settlement can 
only hurt consumers like myself, which I understand would be counter 
to the purpose of the antitrust laws.
    I do not believe that true competition can be attained so long 
as Microsoft is allowed to own standards, whether programming 
standards in the form of APIs, or in file formats such as .doc or 
.avi. If one looks at the history of Microsoft's ascendance, it 
seems to me a large part of their success has derived from their 
tendency to change API and file formats at will, forcing would-be 
competitors to play an endless game of catch up. Microsoft Word is 
the de facto word processor, not because of its technical merits, 
but because it is the only program that can reliably read and write 
.doc documents. Can it truly be good for consumers to be forced to 
buy the latest Microsoft product so they can simply communicate?
    For there to be competition, Microsoft needs to freely publish 
changes to their file formats and APIs several months in advance of 
any Microsoft product actually using them, thus giving potential 
competitors the opportunity to compete on features that are 
important to consumers.
    In my reading of the settlement proposal, I find it to be 
entirely inadequate. Microsoft is very good at squirming through the 
holes in the fine print, and I see some large holes indeed. Plus, 
there seem to be no measures to prevent Microsoft from realizing the 
gain from their illegal behavior, and I believe that was one of the 
directives of the Appeals Court's findings.
    It is my hope that the proposed settlement will be rejected. 
Consumer choice is the engine that drives innovation, and the single 
choice of Microsoft or nothing is almost no choice at all.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Jem Lewis
    800 5th Av #101-447
    Seattle WA 98104
    [email protected]



MTC-00025856

From: Jim Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement fails to Enforce Use of Public 
Standards
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 serious concerns about the proposed settlement for the 
Microsoft case.
    My prime concern is that has no effective provisions against 
Microsoft's practice of deliberately introducing incompatibilities 
in its products that prevent them from interoperating with non-
Microsoft products that conform to public standards. These have the 
effect of driving out use of the non-MIcrosoft products. The 
settlement needs to have effective provisions that force Microsoft 
to comply with standards.

[[Page 27709]]

    Truly yours.
    Jim Murphy
    Wall Township, New Jersey USA



MTC-00025857

From: Orlene McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You guys want to help the economy all you have to do is settle 
this and put a stop to all these law suits. It is so simple the 
economy was really good until the Clinton guys decided to go after 
Msft. just look at the facts it is simple spending millions to get 
the economy going is not the answer you need to settle this.
    Msft is the best company and employs millions what is wrong with 
everyone. Please Please listen to people and do something.
    Live,Love,Laugh



MTC-00025858

From: allen n budge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:04am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The current agreed settlement is fair and further litigation is 
not required.
    Allen Budge



MTC-00025859

From: Mark Christiansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:06am
Subject: Microsoft should be punished
    I hope you make Microsoft pay for it's abuse of it's monopoly. 
They are a monopoly and they are anti-competitive. This is obvious 
to everyone.
    Don't let them get away with their over-pricing and abuse on 
American businesses and the American public.
    Thank You,
    Mark Christiansen
    25 Wiggin St.
    Concord, NH 03301



MTC-00025860

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:09am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please stop the nonsense about breaking up 
microsoft.....microsoft computer applications have been an 
incredible boom for business productivity...



MTC-00025861

From: Michael.Ronayne@ PearsonTC.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Re: Microsoft Settlement
From: Michael E. Ronayne
88 Satterthwaite Avenue
Nutley, New Jersey, 07110
Date: January 26, 2002
    I wish to go on record as supporting Microsoft in the current 
Microsoft Settlement case. While I believe that the original 
antitrust case should never have been brought against Microsoft and 
the judicial decisions in the case were seriously flawed, in the 
interests of both the national defense and the economy of the United 
States, this case must be brought so a swift and just conclusion. If 
the national condition were other than it is, I would have urged 
Microsoft too pursue every avenue of legal redress, to fight the 
decisions in this case. However, if Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice have reached an agreement to settle this case, then the 
terms of the agreement should be implemented quickly, in the 
national interest.
    One of the key arguments against Microsoft in this case involves 
the struggle between Microsoft and Netscape for market share in the 
Internet Web Browser market. In this struggle, Netscape is portrayed 
as the victim who was unjustly deprived of market share by 
Microsoft. I believe a careful examination of the historical record 
will show that Netscape's rights to the software they claimed to 
have developed are not supported by the facts. The reality is that 
both Netscape's and Microsoft's web browsers are totally based on a 
web browser development project funded by the National Science 
Foundation, a branch of the Government of the United States. By 
distributing Internet Explorer at no cost, Microsoft was enabling 
software which had been funded by the American people.
    History Of Internet Explorer
    Every copy of Microsoft Internet Explorer contains the following 
statement in the ``Help``/''About Internet 
Explorer'' pull-down window:
    ``Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at 
the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the 
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Distributed under a 
licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc. Contains security software 
licensed from RSA Data Security Inc. Portions of this software are 
based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG Group. Multimedia 
software components, including Indeo(R); video, Indeo(R) audio, and 
Web Design Effects are provided by Intel Corp. Unix version contains 
software licensed from Mainsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 
1998-1999 Mainsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Mainsoft 
is a trademark of Mainsoft Corporation. Warning: This computer 
program is protected by copyright law and international treaties. 
Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this program, or any 
portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, 
and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the 
law.''
    The above statement is in my opinion, is one the best defenses 
Microsoft can put forward to show that their business practices with 
regards the marketing of Internet Explorer was completely justified 
and in fact quite honorable.
    The first successful web browser was Mosaic (1,2 & 3), which 
was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications 
(NCSA), a unit of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 
The Time Line for Mosaic (4, 5 & 6) is as follows:
    Mosaic Timeline
    Phase 1 (1987-1992/12): Work leading up to the idea to do 
Mosaic.
    Phase 2 (1992/12-1993/11): Implementation and early 
adoption of mosaic and NCSA HTTPd by brave souls.
    Phase 3 (1993/12-1994/5): Killer-app phase, when the world 
recognized that this was the next big thing in IT.
    Phase 4 (1994/5-1997): Commercialization phase. NCSA 
continued to develop and improve Mosaic, but the big news was that 
Netscape was formed and Microsoft transformed itself to make the Web 
integral to its long-term strategy. It was during this phase that 
the world's economic and communications structures were changed 
forever.
    In mid-1994 Marc Andreessen, a principle Mosaic developer and 
recent UIUC graduate, and Jim Clark, the Silicon Graphics founder, 
founded Mosaic Communications, which was later renamed Netscape 
Communications (5 & 6). On October 13, 1994 Marc Andreessen 
announced the availability (8 & 9) of the Mosaic Netscape Beta 
v0.9. The most interesting item in the announcement was the 
following:
    ``Mosaic Netscape is a built-from-scratch Internet 
navigator featuring performance optimized for 14.4 modems, native J 
PEG support, and more.''
    In short, Marc Andreessen developed an entirely new browser in 
four months, an effort which had previously taken two years, while 
he was a student at UIUC. As UIUC still had a product named Mosaic, 
with an installed base of several of several million users world 
wide (7), Netscape had to drop the word Mosaic from their product 
and company names.
    Other then the issue pertaining to of the use of the word 
Mosaic, there apparently was no other interaction between Netscape 
and UIUC. The two questions which beg to be asked are, what are the 
similarities between early versions of Mosaic and Netscape and was 
Netscape development initiated while Marc Andreessen was in the 
employ of UIUC?
    With the launch the first commercial version of Netscape in 
December 1994, Microsoft licensed Mosaic (7) from Spyglass, Inc, a 
licensing company created by UIUC to facilitate to commercial 
distribution of Mosaic to over 100 companies (6). Evidently, 
Netscape was not a Spyglass licensee. In August of 1995, Microsoft 
launched Internet Explorer v1.0 and the rest is history. From the 
release of the first version of IE, Microsoft stated that is was its 
intention to bundle the browser as an integrated component its 
operating systems.
    The reality is that both Netscape and Internet Explorer are 
directly derived from NCSA Mosaic, Netscape through a re-engineered 
version of the source code and Internet Explored directly from the 
original source code. While NCSA Mosaic is owned by UIUC, the 
critical question is who paid for the research and development costs 
of Mosaic? The answer is that Mosaic's development was funded by the 
National Science Foundation's (NSF) Supercomputer Centers program, a 
branch of the Government of the United States.
    It was not Microsoft who harmed Netscape, but Netscape who 
harmed UIUC and Spyglass. It was Microsoft who rescued the

[[Page 27710]]

intellectual property rights entrusted to UIUC by the National 
Science Foundation. For the reasons which I have sighted, Netscape's 
allegations against Microsoft should be inadmissible. Without 
Netscape as a plaintive there is no case against Microsoft.
    Citations
    1. ``NCSA Mosaic Home Page'' http://
archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/Software/Mosaic/
    2. ``NCSA Mosaic History'' http://
archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/General/CommGroup/MosaicHistory/timeline.html
    3. ``NCSA Mosaic History'' http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/
Divisions/Communications/MosaicHistory/
    4. ``NCSA Mosaic Timeline'' http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/
Divisions/Communications/MosaicHistory/timeline.html
    5, ``Browser History Timelines'' http://
www,blooberry.com/indexdot/history/browsers.htm
    6. ``NSF Initiative Leads to NCSA Mosaic and E-
Commerce'' http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Divisions/Communications/
MosaicHistory/impact.html
    7. ``Netscape: A history'' http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/
english/in--depth/business/2000/microsoft/newsid_635000/
635689.stm
    8. ``Here it is world!'' http://groups.google.com/ 
groups'selm=MARCA. 94Oct13005712%40neon.mcom.com
    9. ``Mosaic Netscape is out the door...'' http://
www.w3.org/Style/History/www.eit.com/www.lists/www-talk.1994q4/
0187.html



MTC-00025862

From: Or Botton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:12am
Subject: Not a good idea.
    Ever since we switched to Microsoft products, our high school 
computers crash, freeze, require a reboot and etc'' more then 
ever.
    This generaly cause tremendous trouble simply because we keep 
loosing our documents and works. Unless you save religiously every 
minute, that is.
    Not to mention that all those security holes we keep having to 
patch are a major pain in the neck. Trojan here, E-Mail virus 
there... it reached the level where you dont even have the OPEN the 
letter to get infected. Its enough that you're online!
    I'd rather have my school receive alternative products then 
Microsoft products. Not to mention that having them ``giving 
away'' Microsoft products will only increase their allready 
highly influencive monopoly. Alternative programs are designed to be 
able accept Microsoft files, but Microsoft programs are NOT designed 
to accept files from alternative programs properly.
    So, for a better future--No thanks. We dont want Microsoft 
here.



MTC-00025863

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:13am
Subject: comment on msft
    Just Recently...Five Billion...was offered by Microsoft to 
ATT...Then paid...to keep a competitor from getting access to 
Broadband.
    Microsoft's Monopoly of the PC operating system allows it to cut 
off any competitor by the knee's. And frankly I think that, they 
think...any Judge can stop them.
    Consider...NETSCAPE! Thank You for allowing me to Comment.
    W.M



MTC-00025864

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:13am
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,
    Kathryn Cornwell
    Rt 2, Box C-16
    Killeen, TX 76542



MTC-00025865

From: Doug Yerby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:17am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I have personnally used browsers and programs by other 
manfactures. These products are very inferior to the Microsft 
products.To make a judgement againts Microsoft seems completely 
inane.If other companys made a superior or even equal product user 
would go to it.To punish Microsoft for producing hands down the best 
product is lunancy.
    Sincerly,
    Doug Yerby
    Valrico, Fl



MTC-00025866

From: Rottet, Kevin J
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am personally dissatisfied with the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. I feel that competition is essential to 
the future of the computing industry, and the settlement does not 
adequately address the clearly illegal past activities of Microsoft 
that have inhibited or even prevented competition. I am appalled 
that Microsoft would escape clear punishment for its misdeeds. 
Furthermore, there are areas of the settlement which do not go far 
enough in curbing Microsoft's potential to inhibit competition in 
the future. For instance, there needs to be broader disclosure of 
file formats for popular office and multimedia applications than 
what the settlement foresees. It is my hope that the proposed 
settlement will not take place and the matter will be revisited in a 
more appropriate fashion.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin J. Rottet
    Assistant Professor
    University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
    CC:Rottet Kevin J



MTC-00025867

From: mary vensel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MARY W. VENSEL
4358 TIMUQUANA ROAD, APT. 176
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32210-8561
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to take a moment to express some of my views 
regarding the Microsoft antitrust case. I feel that the settlement 
that your office reached was fair and reasonable. I do not see a 
need for further action at the federal level, especially while 
Microsoft is involved in negotiations with the remaining states to 
reach a conclusion.
    I believe that this case has hurt not just Microsoft, but the IT 
industry as a whole, in the sense that it has forced the focus to 
shift from innovation to litigation. We must restore economic 
confidence by ensuring that success with consumers will not cause 
government retaliation, and that standardization and 
interoperability can win out in the marketplace.
    By placing Microsoft under the supervision of an oversight 
committee to monitor its practices and giving competitors access to 
Windows code, your settlement will force Microsoft to become a more 
responsible industry leader, while allowing the competition to share 
some of its success. Consumers will have more choices, competitors 
will have more chances, and Microsoft will retain some of the 
benefits of its innovation.
    We must ensure that our country maintains its position as the 
world's technology leader. I believe that your settlement will allow 
that to happen. I hope your office will see fit to end this debacle 
at the federal level and allow the industry and the economy to move 
forward.
    Sincerely,
    Mary W. Vensel



MTC-00025868

From: Lane Hartle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:22am
Subject: Netscape vs Microsoft
    I wish everyone would quit picking on Microsoft. This latest 
proposal to have Microsoft remove the Internet Explorer from the 
desktop is ridiculous. Why does Netscape

[[Page 27711]]

feel threatened? If Netscape had an operating system that was 
installed on nearly every computer in the world, don't you think 
THEY would have a link to Netscape Communicator on THEIR desktop? 
And what IS the big deal, anyway?
    Both browsers are free, so Netscape isn't losing any money to a 
competitor.
    Recently, I purchased several new computer systems with Windows 
XP preloaded. I installed Netscape Communicator 6.2, and it promptly 
crashed every time I ran it. Several MONTHS after the release of XP, 
Netscape announced version 6.2.1, which fixed many of the bugs for 
XP users. It was a good thing Microsoft Internet Explorer was 
already tested and installed under XP, or I would have had no 
internet access.
    If Netscape feels threatened and wants to complain, then 
Netscape needs to make sure future versions of Communicator function 
properly when newer operating systems become available. Or, they 
need to develop their own operating system that supports their own 
products.
    Lane T. Hartle
    [email protected]



MTC-00025869

From: John Donaldson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very concerned that the proposed settlement does not fit 
the act.
    Please rethink the process and require Microsoft to make amends 
that, at the very least, equal the crime.



MTC-00025870

From: James Bralski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft, I support the Microsoft 
Settlement. It was criminal for the United States Government to 
attack success in the first place. Repressive government actions are 
not in my country's best interest.
    Settle now. James Bralski Hermitage, PA



MTC-00025871

From: TomG
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the subject settlement is more than fair. The 
obligations accepted by Microsoft go far beyond what is reasonable 
and fair. It appears that a number of vested interests want even 
more concessions, but they are not in the public interest, nor in 
the interest of the long term health of the industry. thank you
    Make a Great Day TomG (Tom Gerhart) Tampa, Fl



MTC-00025872

From: ColinRamsay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:29am
Subject: MICROSOFT
    I am not a Microsoft employee nor do I have any financial 
interest in Microsoft. I am a retired business executive, but I am 
keenly interested in the Microsoft case as a citizen. The additional 
penalties which the states opposing the DOJ settlement proposal are 
demanding would be injurious to both our individual citizens who use 
the Internet and to our nation's world-wide competitive position. If 
these states, including Florida, get their demands, our nation's 
digital innovation will suffer, costs will increase and operating 
codes compatibility will become more complex. Additionally, the 
attorneys general of individual states will be encouraged to further 
feed their egos and political ambitions by meddling in future DOJ 
cases.
    Colin N. Ramsay 8303 Royal Sand Circle #102 Tampa, FL 33615



MTC-00025873

From: Herbert Gonzalez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:34am
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    Enough is enough! Settle the case!



MTC-00025874

From: Ray Buckles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:45am
Subject: USAGBuckles--Ray--1040--0124



MTC-00025874-0001

    4226 Montgomery Place Mount Vernon, WA 98274-8702 January 
25, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft US Department of Justice, 950 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Microsoft antitrust suit has lingered in the federal courts 
for nearly four years now. Last June, settlement negotiations began, 
and it was not until November that a settlement was finally reached. 
The settlement is pending approval, and next week, the courts will 
determine whether or not it should be finalized. Unfortunately, 
Microsoft's opponents would like to see Microsoft more harshly 
punished, and are seeking to undermine the settlement and bring 
additional litigation against Microsoft. I do not believe that this 
is at all necessary. I believe that it is in the best interest of 
the economy to halt litigation now and to settle the case on the 
terms proposed last November. Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice have agreed on a broad range of terms under the settlement 
that restrict monopolistic actions on the part of Microsoft and 
require the corporation to effect a number of changes in product and 
procedure. For example, Microsoft will no longer be permitted to 
enter into contracts that would require a third party to promote or 
distribute Microsoft products at a fixed percentage. Microsoft also 
plans to revise future versions of Windows so that non-Microsoft 
software will be compatible with the Windows operating system. I do 
not believe the claims that Microsoft has been dealt with too 
leniently. Several conditions of the settlement actually extend to 
technologies and procedures that were not found to be unlawful by 
the Court of Appeals. The antitrust case has dragged on long enough. 
I believe it is in the best interest of the public, the economy, and 
the technology industry to settle the case, and give Microsoft a 
chance to prove itself in the settlement before dismissing it out of 
hand. I urge you to allow the settlement to stand.
    Sincerely,
    Ray Buckles



MTC-00025874-0002



MTC-00025875

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:36am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen: Don't let the computer geeks fool you into thinking 
we would all be better off selecting and assembling various software 
components to run on our PCs. That simply is not the case. As a 
nation we would not have come to the point in computing and 
information technology without the simplicity Microsoft has brought 
us. I have been using computers for Civil Engineering and Surveying 
for thirty years. I remember when this thing would not communicate 
with that thing because of a lack of a common operating system. Let 
me also remind you that the anti-trust laws were enacted to protect 
me, not AOL, Sun and Netscape. If they really had a better idea we 
would really be using it. Then there is of course the mind boggling 
question ``should we the people be comforted by the fact that a 
bunch of government lawyers and a judge now have a strangle hold on 
the computer industry''.
    If you need a cause to occupy your time do something about the 
credit card industry and the twenty nine dollar late fees they all 
have begun charging us in addition to interset. Keep in mind here 
this is hurting me, not Chase or Citibank. To sum up i believe your 
efforts are misdirected. Patrick A. Gialloernzo, PE, LS



MTC-00025876

From: Shawn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:38am
Subject: AOL in Negotiations to
Buy Red Hat:
http://www.washtech.com/news/
media/14759-1.html
AOL in Negotiations to Buy Red Hat:
http://www.washtech.com/news/
media/14759-1.html
    Let's see, AOL already owns ICQ, Winamp, Compuserve, Netscape, 
and Time Warner. Yet Microsoft is the one accused of causing a 
monopoly. Ironic, eh? I can also imagine this imagine this: aol and 
microsoft go into direct competition, and they have a ``who can 
buy the most companies'' contest. aol buys red hat, microsoft 
buys macromedia, aol buys apple, microsoft buys adobe, aol buys 
dell, microsoft buys compaq, aol buys prodigy, microsoft buys 
earthlink, aol buys ibm, microsoft buys intel, aol buys amd, and 
then they continue to buy other smaller software companies and 
computer manufacturers until there are none left. Then one day, they 
stop arguing, and merge. it's going to hapen, just wait and see.



MTC-00025877

From: Edwin Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:39am

[[Page 27712]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Count this one against Microsoft
    Dear People,
    As both a producer and consumer of microcomputer software, I am 
concerned that a vigorous and open market be maintained for software 
development.
    I understand from independent sources that Microsoft has been 
attempting to influence the responses during the Tunney Act comment 
period by a concerted effort to solicit favorable comments. To me, 
this is a typical Microsoft tactic aimed at bolstering its quasi-
monopoly position in the desktop software business and extending it 
to enterprise computing and networking.
    I urge the DOJ to support the most stringent provisions possible 
to limit Micosoft's ability to control and throttle independent 
software development in these areas.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Edwin W. Meyer
    Edwin Meyer Software Engineering P.O. Box 390070; Cambridge, MA
    02139
    617-876-1350 Fax 605-238-1795
    http://www.edwinmeyer.com/



MTC-00025878

From: Wes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:39am
Subject: Microsoft hearing



MTC-00025878--0001

January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-00001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Pursuant to the Justice Department's requst for public ocmment 
on the proposed settlement of the Microsoft case, I am writing in 
support of the settlement.
    It is difficult for the average person to understand all of the 
charges and counter-charges thrown about in a case such as this. 
Terms such as ``restraint of trade'' and ``predatory 
pricing practices'' have very little meaning to the man on the 
street. Out concern is whether, after the litigation is over, the 
public interest was actually served by the lawsuit and its 
settlement.
    The public interest will be well served by this settlement if 
for no other reason than expanded choice. Microsoft has agreed to 
allow make it easiser for consumers to use non-Microsoft products 
and programs when using Windows as their operating system. There 
will now be greater choice for consumers in selecting Internet 
providers, media players and other programs.
    I hope that this settlement will remain intact after the public 
comment period. Our economy needs these companies out of the 
courtrooms and back to work as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Wesley T. Charpie
    Charpie,
    3970 Waycross Drive,
    Columbus, IN 47203-3526



MTC-00025879

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The settlement reached in the Microsoft anti-trust dispute is 
essential to the continued success of America's technology industry 
in the world market. Our IT industry has floundered for the past 
three years since the inauguration of this anti-trust suit against 
Microsoft three years ago. This settlement is fair and is a prime 
opportunity to put this litigation behind us.
    Under the terms of the agreement, Microsoft has agreed to design 
all future versions of Windows to be more compatible with the 
products of its competitors. Microsoft has also agreed not to 
retaliate against any competitor who produces products that compete 
with its own. And, finally Microsoft has promised to report to a 
three person technical committee that will monitor Microsoft's 
compliance to these terms. I believe that this settlement is 
reasonable for the simple reason that it will allow Microsoft to get 
back to business without being pirated and split apart.
    Thank you for you help in this issue and for allowing me to 
express my opinion. Free enterprise is a precious commodity in this 
nation and it must be protected.
    Sincerely,
    James anf Harriet Lay
    1405 Hickory Hollow Dr.
    Flint, MI 48507



MTC-00025880

From: Jack Beglinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    The current settlement plan between Microsoft and the US 
Department of Justice, fails to stop the ``Monopoly 
Tending'' of Microsoft. In actually, it helps strengthen 
Microsoft's Monopoly to the point of helping Microsoft try to 
destroy the only competitor to they reign of power--LINUX. The 
agreement's greatest flaw is the definition of a class of companies 
that Microsoft ``needs'' to talk to ISVs and OEMs and the 
like.
    I am and have been both types of ``companies''. I 
build my own machines-- like a DELL or Gateway. I write code 
and create Integrated Systems akin to a Symantec or a CSA. But I am 
also a single person, to small for Microsoft to talk to, to small to 
afford the cost to go their meetings about their technology. I have 
for years be forced to buy Operating Systems at full retail prices, 
though I build me own machines. I was blocked for years of getting 
Windows 95 OSR2--an OEM only version of the OS containing the 
newest hardware interfaces.
    By allowing this agreement to contain clauses that 
``anoint'' companies that Microsoft must 
``talk'' to you have caused Microsoft greater monopoly 
power by being the ``glue'' in a cartel of large companies 
all protecting they own pocketbooks.
    A case in point is IBM. Microsoft was at one time offering 
PowerPC Windows NT System. PowerPC is used in IBM's Midrange 
Machines and Apples Macintoch. Microsoft pulled the support of that 
processor. Which give Intel more years to keep pricing inflated on 
its processors--both the x86 line and the Alpha that Intel was 
building for DEC. Compaq Computers now own DEC. Instance Microsoft 
strengthen two of its best business partners and itself while trying 
to hurt IBM.
    With NDA and limited information that Microsoft is required to 
release. LINUX will be hurt by not having access to information for 
compatibility. LINUX is a competing operating system that Microsoft 
can not buy or sue i nto non-existence. Companies, like RedHat, make 
money is selling services or easy to install copies of the OS, 
without having to pay a licensing fee. But LINUX licensee places a 
burden on a developer that code made avai lable via under it 
licensee is free of other licensing restricting and the full source 
is available at no extra charge. In this way the next developer can 
improve the code and again pass it on. Allows for thousands of 
people to give a little of themselves for the greater good. Signing 
a NDA or paying for trips to meetings, places a unfair burden in 
small ``guys'' like myself to compete, or share what I 
have learned. Even to share code, since licensing restrictions may 
get in the way. Instances,
    I am ``un-clean'' to work on open source projects. I 
may use some else IP by accident. In the end, the agreement should 
be blocked and better settlement be reached. IF the agreement is 
kept, then change it so the following happens:
    1) All API's are published, documented, and examples made 
available 6 months prior to first general release containing the 
API's. Release of API's is made by any method of Microsoft's choice 
as long it is also placed on microsoft.com website, easily found 
(example: Search: ``API WinXP'') and limited to HTML 
version 3 display standards. Further not having to register with or 
agree to a NDA with Microsoft or any other company to gain access to 
this information.
    Further to state... an API is not Intellectual Property, but 
ways to ``talk'' to a program that is.
    2) A Beta version is released and in the hands of all whom asks 
for it, no later than 3 months prior the general release or an 
product. Any changes to that Beta must in the hands of all who 
received the original shipping, to later than 2 weeks after the 
change were made or 2 weeks prior to general release, which ever is 
earlier. An exception is a emergency release because a virus 
exploit.
    3) Remove any clause that defines who Microsoft has to talk to. 
Instead place ``Any person who wishes know''.
    Change 1, insures that if I wish to create a product that 
interacts with a Microsoft product, that I have full and complete 
information. AND will not be blocked or restricted by Microsoft. 
Change 2, Allows me to make compatibility tests and modification to 
my code prior to Microsoft releasing their product. This way my 
customers are protected from changes that may break code they are 
running. Change 3, Allows anyone

[[Page 27713]]

who wishes to go a technology meeting will be allowed IT IS NOT 
LONGER A ``PRIVATE CLUB''.
    If in way I can help, please let me know.
    Jack Beglinger
    8900 Keeler Ave
    Skokie, IL
    847-677-2427



MTC-00025881

From: Richard Zelade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    I strongly object to the presently configured, proposed settle 
of the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit for the following reasons, and 
offer some suggestions on changing it to something that will truly 
benefit the American people and the rest of the computing world.
    A third option not provided by the PFJ would be to make sure 
that Microsoft raises no artificial barriers against non-Microsoft 
operating systems which implement the APIs needed to run application 
programs written for Windows. The Findings of Fact (?52) considered 
the possibility that competing operating systems could implement the 
Windows APIs and thereby directly run software written for Windows 
as a way of circumventing the Applications Barrier to Entry. This is 
in fact the route being taken by the Linux operating system, which 
includes middleware (named WINE) that can run many Windows programs.
    By not providing some aid for ISVs engaged in making Windows-
compatible operating systems, the PFJ is missing a key opportunity 
to encourage competition in the Intel-compatible operating system 
market. Worse yet, the PFJ itself, in sections III.D. and III.E., 
restricts information released by those sections to be used 
``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product''. This prohibits ISVs from using the 
information for the purpose of writing operating systems that 
interoperate with Windows programs. How should the Final Judgment be 
enforced? The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. It does provide for the creation of a 
Technical Committee with investigative powers, but appears to leave 
all actual enforcement to the legal system. What information needs 
to be released to ISVs to encourage competition, and under what 
terms? The PFJ provides for increased disclosure of technical 
information to ISVs, but these provisions are flawed in several 
ways: 1. The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements Section III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors of 
competing middleware to meet ``reasonable technical 
requirements'' seven months before new releases of Windows, yet 
it does not require Microsoft to disclose those requirements in 
advance. This allows Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs. 2. API documentation is released too late to 
help ISVs Section III.D. of the PFJ requires Microsoft to release 
via MSDN or similar means the documentation for the APIs used by 
Microsoft Middleware Products to interoperate with Windows; release 
would be required at the time of the final beta test of the covered 
middleware, and whenever a new version of Windows is sent to 150,000 
beta testers. But this information would almost certainly not be 
released in time for competing middleware vendors to adapt their 
products to meet the requirements of section III.H.3, which states 
that competing middleware can be locked out if it fails to meet 
unspecified technical requirements seven months before the final 
beta test of a new version of Windows. 3. Many important APIs would 
remain undocumented The PFJ's overly narrow definitions of 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' and ``API'' 
means that Section III.D.'s requirement to release information about 
Windows interfaces would not cover many important interfaces. 4. 
Unreasonable Restrictions are Placed on the Use of the Released 
Documentation ISVs writing competing operating systems as outlined 
in Findings of Fact (?52) sometimes have difficulty understanding 
various undocumented Windows APIs. The information released under 
section III.D. of the PFJ would aid those ISVs--except that the 
PFJ disallows this use of the information. Worse yet, to avoid 
running afoul of the PFJ, ISVs might need to divide up their 
engineers into two groups: those who refer to MSDN and work on 
Windows-only applications; and those who cannot refer to MSDN 
because they work on applications which also run on non-Microsoft 
operating systems. This would constitute retaliation against ISVs 
who support competing operating systems. 5. File Formats Remain 
Undocumented No part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to release any 
information about file formats, even though undocumented Microsoft 
file formats form part of the Applications Barrier to Entry (see 
``Findings of Fact'' ?20 and ? 39). 6. Patents covering 
the Windows APIs remain undisclosed Section III.I of the PFJ 
requires Microsoft to offer to license certain intellectual property 
rights, but it does nothing to require Microsoft to clearly announce 
which of its many software patents protect the Windows APIs (cf. 
current practice at the World Wide Web Consortium, http://
www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice). This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users, as illustrated by this report from Codeweavers, 
Inc.: When selecting a method of porting a major application to 
Linux, one prospect of mine was comparing Wine [a competing 
implementation of some of the Windows APIs] and a toolkit called 
`MainWin'. MainWin is made by Mainsoft, and Mainsoft 
licenses its software from Microsoft. However, this customer elected 
to go with the Mainsoft option instead. I was told that one of the 
key decision making factors was that Mainsoft representatives had 
stated that Microsoft had certain critical patents that Wine was 
violating. My customer could not risk crossing Microsoft, and 
declined to use Wine. I didn't even have a chance to determine which 
patents were supposedly violated; nor to disprove the validity of 
this claim. The PFJ, by allowing this unclear legal situation to 
continue, is inhibiting the market acceptance of competing operating 
systems. Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibited? The PFJ 
prohibits certain behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs, but curiously 
allows the following exclusionary practices:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white box'' 
OEMs, if they offer competing products. Section III.B. also allows 
Microsoft to offer unspecified Market Development 
Allowances--in effect, discounts--to OEMs. For instance, 
Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based on the 
number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems sold by 
that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly 
on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its market share 
in other areas, such as office software or ARM-compatible operating 
systems.
    By allowing these practices, the PFJ is encouraging Microsoft to 
extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, and to 
leverage it into new areas. Which practices towards ISVs should be 
prohibited? Sections III.F. and III.G. of the PFJ prohibit certain 
exclusionary licensing practices by Microsoft towards ISVs.
    However, Microsoft uses other exclusionary licensing practices, 
none of which are mentioned in the PFJ. Several of Microsoft's 
products'' licenses prohibit the products'' use with 
popular non-Microsoft middleware and operating systems. Two examples 
are given below. 1. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who ship 
Open Source applications The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK 
EULA states ... you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE 
COMPONENT in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. 
``Publicly Available Software'' means each of (i) any 
software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in 
part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open 
source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution 
models ... Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, 
software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses 
or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar 
to any of the following: GNU's General Public License (GPL) or 
Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL); The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the 
Mozilla Public License; the Netscape Public License; the Sun 
Community Source License (SCSL); ... Many Windows APIs, including 
Media Encoder, are shipped by Microsoft as add-on SDKs with 
associated redistributable components.
    Applications that wish to use them must include the add-ons, 
even though they might

[[Page 27714]]

later become a standard part of Windows. Microsoft often provides 
those SDKs under End User License Agreements (EULAs) prohibiting 
their use with Open Source applications. This harms ISVs who choose 
to distribute their applications under Open Source licenses; they 
must hope that the enduser has a sufficiently up-to-date version of 
the addon API installed, which is often not the case.
    Applications potentially harmed by this kind of EULA include the 
competing middleware product Netscape 6 and the competing office 
suite StarOffice; these EULAs thus can cause support problems for, 
and discourage the use of, competing middleware and office suites. 
Additionally, since Open Source applications tend to also run on 
non-Microsoft operating systems, any resulting loss of market share 
by Open Source applications indirectly harms competing operating 
systems. 2. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who target Windows-
compatible competing Operating Systems The Microsoft Platform SDK, 
together with Microsoft Visual C++, is the primary toolkit used by 
ISVs to create Windows-compatible applications. The Microsoft 
Platform SDK EULA says: ``Distribution Terms. You may reproduce 
and distribute ... the Redistributable Components... provided that 
(a) you distribute the Redistributable Components only in 
conjunction with and as a part of your Application solely for use 
with a Microsoft Operating System Product...'' This makes it 
illegal to run many programs built with Visual C++ on Windows-
compatible competing operating systems.
    By allowing these exclusionary behaviors, the PFJ is 
contributing to the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by competing 
operating systems. Which practices towards large users should be 
prohibited? The PFJ places restrictions on how Microsoft licenses 
its products to OEMs, but not on how it licenses products to large 
users such as corporations, universities, or state and local 
governments, collectively referred to as ``enterprises'' 
Yet enterprise license agreements often resemble the per-processor 
licenses which were prohibited by the 1994 consent decree in the 
earlier US v. Microsoft antitrust case, in that a fee is charged for 
each desktop or portable computer which could run a Microsoft 
operating system, regardless of whether any Microsoft software is 
actually installed on the affected computer. These agreements are 
anticompetitive because they remove any financial incentive for 
individuals or departments to run non-Microsoft software. Which 
practices towards end users should be prohibited? Microsoft has used 
both restrictive licenses and intentional incompatibilities to 
discourage users from running Windows applications on Windows-
compatible competing operating systems. Two examples are given 
below. 1. Microsoft uses license terms which prohibit the use of 
Windows-compatible competing operating systems MSNBC (a subsidiary 
of Microsoft) offers software called NewsAlert. Its EULA states 
``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install and use 
copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly 
licensed copies of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE 
PRODUCT was designed [e.g., Microsoft Windows(r) 95; Microsoft 
Windows NT(r), Microsoft Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.]. ... 
``Only the Windows version appears to be available for 
download. Users who run competing operating systems (such as Linux) 
which can run some Windows programs might wish to run the Windows 
version of NewsAlert, but the EULA prohibits this.
    MSNBC has a valid interest in prohibiting use of pirated copies 
of operating systems, but much narrower language could achieve the 
same protective effect with less anticompetitive impact. For 
instance, ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install 
and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running 
validly licensed copies of Microsoft Windows or compatible operating 
system.``2. Microsoft created intentional incompatibilities in 
Windows 3.1 to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating systems 
An episode from the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit 
illustrates how Microsoft has used technical means 
anticompetitively.
    Microsoft's original operating system was called MS-DOS. 
Programs used the DOS API to call up the services of the operating 
system. Digital Research offered a competing operating system, DR-
DOS, that also implemented the DOS API, and could run programs 
written for MS-DOS. Windows 3.1 and earlier were not operating 
systems per se, but rather middleware that used the DOS API to 
interoperate with the operating system. Microsoft was concerned with 
the competitive threat posed by DR-DOS, and added code to beta 
copies of Windows 3.1 so it would display spurious and misleading 
error messages when run on DR-DOS. Digital Research's successor 
company, Caldera, brought a private antitrust suit against Microsoft 
in 1996. (See the original complaint, and Caldera's consolidated 
response to Microsoft's motions for partial summary judgment.) The 
judge in the case ruled that ``Caldera has presented sufficient 
evidence that the incompatibilities alleged were part of an 
anticompetitive scheme by Microsoft.'' That case was settled 
out of court in 1999, and no court has fully explored the alleged 
conduct.



MTC-00025881-0004

    The concern here is that, as competing operating systems emerge 
which are able to run Windows applications, Microsoft might try to 
sabotage Windows applications, middleware, and development tools so 
that they cannot run on non-Microsoft operating systems, just as 
they did earlier with Windows 3.1. The PFJ as currently written does 
nothing to prohibit these kinds of restrictive licenses and 
intentional incompatibilities, and thus encourages Microsoft to use 
these techniques to enhance the Applications Barrier to Entry, and 
harming those consumers who use non-Microsoft operating systems and 
wish to use Microsoft applications software.
    Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public interest?
    The problems identified above with the Proposed Final Judgment 
can be summarized as follows: The PFJ doesn't take into account 
Windows-compatible competing operating systemsMicrosoft 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 ProvisionsThe 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 MicrosoftMicrosoft 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 
MicrosoftMicrosoft 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

[[Page 27715]]

ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system. The PFJ allows Microsoft to 
discriminate against small OEMs-- including regional 
``white box'' OEMs which are historically the most willing 
to install competing operating systems--who ship competing 
software. The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows 
(MDAs) to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or 
Pocket PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on 
Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its market share in 
other areas. The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an 
effective enforcement mechanism. Considering these problems, one 
must conclude that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, and 
would delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems. Therefore, the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public 
interest, and should not be adopted without addressing these issues.



MTC-00025881-0005

    Strengthening the PFJ
    The above discussion shows that the PFJ does not satisfy the 
Court of Appeals'' mandate. Some of the plaintiff States have 
proposed an alternate settlement which fixes many of the problems 
identified above. The States'' proposal is quite different from 
the PFJ as a whole, but it contains many elements which are similar 
to elements of the PFJ, with small yet crucial changes.
    II suggest amendments to the PFJ that attempt to resolve some of 
the demonstrated problems (time pressure has prevented a more 
complete list of amendments). When discussing amendments, PFJ text 
is shown indented; removed text in shown in [bracketed strikeout], 
and new text in bold italics.
    Correcting the PFJ's definitions
    Definition U should be amended to read 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.] any 
software or firmware code distributed commercially by Microsoft that 
is capable of executing any subset of the Win32 APIs, including 
without exclusion Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, 
Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, 
PocketPC 2002, and successors to the foregoing, including the 
products currently code named ``Longhorn'' and 
``Blackcomb'' and their successors, including upgrades, 
bug fixes, service packs, etc.
    Sincerely,
    Richard zelade
    2821 East 22nd St.
    Austin, TX 78722
    512-477-1044



MTC-00025881-0006



MTC-00025882

From: John McQuillan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:40am
Subject: Mr. Ashcroft,
    Mr. Ashcroft,
    I have attached a letter outlining my strong feelings that the 
government of the United States move forward with the Microsoft 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    John McQuillan
    CC:
    [email protected]@inetgw
12 Bruce Lane
Northport, NY 11768
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Please accept the following comments made pursuant to the Tunney 
Act's public comment requirement in the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement.
    I support the parties'' decision to settle this case. The 
terms of the settlement agreement are reasonable, and will 
accomplish the goal of preventing anticompetitive business practices 
by Microsoft. For instance, design obligations will also be imposed 
on Microsoft. These obligations will have the net effect of making 
it easier for consumers to remove and replace features of Windows 
with software made by Microsoft's competitors, thereby making it 
easier for consumers to choose other software over Windows, if they 
so desire. Additionally, a technical committee will be created to 
monitor Microsoft's compliance with the terms of the agreement.
    I am hopeful that, in its review of the settlement agreement, 
the Court will appreciate the concessions made by Microsoft, the 
monumental contribution that Microsoft made to productivity of the 
American economy, and will realize that it will not be in the best 
interest of the American economy or the American consumer to 
continue litigating this case.
    Sincerely,
    John McQuillan
    631-757-4522
    [email protected]



MTC-00025883

From: Lee D. Ibsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a professional computer user and a patriotic US citizen, I 
think we owe a debt of gratitude to Microsoft for providing the 
long-range planning for PC software packages which work seamlessly 
together. I know that many of the current players did not go through 
the confusing early years of PCs when users had to resort to writing 
their own software to get one application to transfer data to 
another. I did, and as an engineer who used computers as a tool I 
was very grateful when Microsoft established those interface 
standards to make the PC so much more valuable as a tool to help me 
solve my problems. And as new ideas came along I could count on 
Microsoft to rapidly incorporate them into its growing suite of 
tools.
    I think this whole lawsuit is ``Sour Grapes'' by 
jealous competitors. And somewhat politically motivated. What if the 
government had not allowed Ford to innovate as new features for the 
automobile were developed? Would you have sued Sears for 
incorperating the Crescent Wrench in its suite of tools? If it 
hadn't been for Microsoft, the computer age would probably not have 
occurred. Instead of a lawsuit--they should be getting awards!
Lee Ibsen
Systems Analyst
USAF



MTC-00025884

From: heinos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The DOJ anti-trust settlement recently concluded is fair for all 
parties concerned. Further litigation should be avoided since any 
outcome will in most probability make it more difficult and costly 
for the consumer, the computer industry and the economy as a whole. 
The market should determine who the economic winners and losers are 
and not determined by the never ending litigation in the courts.
    From my viewpoint this anti-trust action was driven more by 
Microsoft's competitors rather than by the consumer who should 
always be the real beneficiary of any anti-trust action. It would be 
interesting to know how many of the 150+ million computer users, 
excluding those employed by competing firms, voiced a complaint in 
regards to this lawsuit.
    If it wasn't for the low cost bundled standardized operating 
system packages produced by Microsoft, the computer industry and 
it's technical offshoots would not be as widespread and orderly as 
they are today.
    In fact, many of Microsoft's competitors would not be in 
existence today if it were not for the success of Microsoft in 
developing this mass market. Should a company be penalized for 
producing a high quality, low cost product purchased by consumers 
who own 90% of all personal computers? A 90% penetration of the 
personal computer market sounds like a howling consumer endorsement 
of Microsoft products! In the area of consumer costs, the cost of an 
installed Microsoft PC operating system package in a new computer 
probably wouldn't be enough to pay for an hour spent at dinner for 
two at most medium priced restaurants; whereas, the consumer gets 
thousands of hours of enjoyment from the same investment.
    Finally, all companies should be free to add (bundle) any 
features into their products as they see fit to make the product 
more versatile to the mass of consumers. It's true that some 
consumers may not want a particular feature in a product, but 
consumers have always been buying mass

[[Page 27716]]

produced products with features that they may, or may not use. 
Should software be sold any differently than other product lines, or 
do software packages have to be expensively tailored for each of the 
150+ million personal computer users? Where would personal 
transportation be today if the evolution of the automobile was 
stopped at the invention of the wheel thousands of years ago?
    Frank Heino
    762 Bison Drive
    Houston, TX 77070-4401



MTC-00025885

From: Rick Kennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attention Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice
    The proposed settlement does little to nothing to end 
Microsoft's growing domination of in the computer industry and, more 
importantly, much more importantly, the Internet. Microsoft 
continues to leverage their dominance of the Windows OS in areas 
that that will jepordize not only fair competition but ultimately 
the freedom of information in general. Somone must ensure that the 
proposed settlement is scrapped or modified in a way that not only 
provides justice, but protects our freedom.
    Thank You and Regards
    Rick Kennett
    Guildweb Information and Technology Services



MTC-00025886

From: Gary Wright
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Wright
32269 Cour Pomerol
Temecula, CA 92591
January 26, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Wright



MTC-00025887

From: Ivo Jossart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i cannot agree with this court decision.
    It's not weakening Microsoft, it's no real punishment for a 
company that's convicted for unfair practices... (practices that 
continue going on--have a look at Windows2000 & Windows 
XP--i cannot remove Outlook Express, Internet Explorer, MSN 
Messenger).
    I also would like to see that the court tells Microsoft that 
every software inside Windows2000 that was removable in Window98 and 
earlier, should remain removable. e.g. Internet Explorer, Media 
Player, MSN Messenger, defragmentation software, windows scripting 
host...
    Due to the connection between the operating system and the 
internet browser, millions and millions of dollars have been 
lost--due to virus-spreading activities. No real changes have 
been made to make the systems safer--by making the Internet 
Browser a normal application instead of putting it inside the 
operating system, as Microsoft want is to be. I believe an operating 
system should server the applications--and there should be a 
difference between the operating system and the 
internetapplications--just to keep everything a bit more 
secure. A lot of software-packages are no real part of an operating 
system, should be removable and we should have the right to protect 
our privacy and freedom of choise.
    That right is never been more neglected that during the last few 
years--it started with the apprearance of Windows2000 and it's 
getting worse every time there's a new operating system on the 
market.
    At this moment we're in no position of asking Microsoft to do 
so--now at the point that there is an overwhelming majority of 
IE users, it seems that the company is loosening their grip a bit on 
the Internet browser-theme. I also want to point out that this 
company is spreading lies about an open source initiative called 
linux. It's just a game for them--and there's no way to defend 
us consumers against these practices.
    But right now they're playing the same game as with Internet-
explorer vs. netscape on the multi-media streaming market & the 
instant messaging market. Of course the software is free--but 
the development costs are hidden into the operating system cost. 
(look at the higher prices of Windows XP home & Windows XP 
Profession--vs. Windows98 & windowsNT 4). Normally i don't 
have the right to interfere, but due to the worldwide effect of this 
case, I believe it's my moral duty to say something about this 
important theme. And i believe i have the right to 
interfere--when an american company hurts a world-citizen, that 
man or woman should be able to say what he has to say. There's more 
in this play than just unfair business practices it's the freedom of 
speach that's endangered.
    Kind regards.



MTC-00025888

From: Dan Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think think that the proposed settlement with microsoft is a 
bad idea. I have witnessed and experienced the microsoft monopoly 
for many years. I believe that the only way to break their monopoly, 
and to bring not only competition but innovation into the 
marketplace, is to split microsoft into several (at least 3) 
different companies, in a similar way as was done to the oil 
monopolies of many years ago.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Johnston
    Division of Neuroscience
    Baylor College of Medicine
    1 Baylor Plaza
    Houston, TX 77030
    713 798-5984 (voice) 713 799-8544 (fax)



MTC-00025889

From: jhministry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Once again another competitor is attemtping to sue Microsoft for 
the same thing that the DOJ has tried then for. Microsoft has been 
tried and a decision has been made by the DOJ. When is the DOJ going 
to stop allowing any competitors who so desires to continue to 
harass Microsoft? Let's put an end to this!
    Rev Johnie Hinson
    Hampton, VA
    Jesus Is Lord!



MTC-00025890

From: Scott Swain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone! They have done more good by far 
for this country (and the world) than harm. We have come along way 
from the American businessman being a hero and that is sad to me. 
Spend your time (and my tax money) attacking real criminals.
    Scott Swain
    http://OceanWebs.com
    Austin, TX



MTC-00025891

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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

[[Page 27717]]

Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly 
harmed by Microsoft: the computer user. This is just another method 
for states to get free money, and a terrible precedent for the 
future, not only in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of 
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 W. Higginbotham
    84 Cherokee Trail Medford Lakes, NJ 08055-1602



MTC-00025892

From: The Fallons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have been a computer user for a number of years now. I have 
used both Microsoft's and America Online's products and services. I 
have also sat quietly and watched the developments of the lawsuit 
against Microsoft, with no comment other than to shake my head in 
dismay. Upon seeing that AOL intends to reopen the case with a 
private action against Microsoft, I felt I had to at least say 
something on Microsoft's behalf.
    To anyone who has watched the development of the technology over 
the last several decades, it is quite apparent that the charges 
against Microsoft are baseless. They have been the pioneers in 
developing operating systems and applications software for consumer 
use for years. Their actions in the market have been driven, in 
addition to the obvious motive of market share, largely by consumer 
feedback and consumer demand. Each one of their developments 
incorporated new (sometimes even third-party) software, to enhance 
the users'' experience, without the added cost of having to 
actually purchase the third-party software at additional cost to the 
user. At the time, each one of these separate tools incorporated by 
Microsoft were individually welcomed and even applauded by the 
consumers who had demanded such incorporation. The industry was 
being driven by an unusual combination of competition and 
cooperation, which has contributed to one of the fastest-growing 
segments of our economy. Concurrently, AOL was developed in an 
interesting time of technological flux, able to make an industry out 
of utilizing existing telephone lines (constructed, coincidentally, 
by another company which fell prey to an anti-trust suit) to conduct 
a business in which they collected receipts for the use of these 
existing lines. They created nothing substantial, and they made no 
contribution to the software or hardware industry other than on 
their own behalf.
    Now the market is suffering, because AOL chose to utilize the 
court system to accomplish what they were unwilling or unable to do 
in the competitive marketplace. And we, the people, are not only 
going to suffer the consequences, we are being asked to pay for the 
litigation which will yield the end which AOL is seeking. And 
finally, to add insult to injury, AOL is claiming to be doing all of 
this ``on our behalf'' as consumers.
    It's time all of this hogwash stopped. Enough time, money, and 
effort have been misdirected already. AOL will not back away or stop 
the fight until someone tells them to. That someone has to be the 
Department of Justice, and the time to do it is now. I urge you to 
do just that.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey S. Fallon



MTC-00025893

From: Diana Carsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:53am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    This message offers a comment on the settlement between DOJ and 
Microsoft.
    I support the settlement already agreed upon that requires 
Microsoft to make it easier for users to load other programs and 
that allows programmers to interface with Windows. That's cool. As a 
new user of an XP, I appreciate the inter-relationships I have found 
pre-loaded on my machine; and I am glad that XP seems to have 
adopted this more-open approach.
    I do not support harsher penalties sought that would split out 
Windows from all of its programs. Computers are an essential part of 
our lives, they should be increasingly sophisticated, not made to be 
difficult and awkward for us to use. Keep Windows together the way 
it was invented; and let the competition among creative minds 
continue in all the other ways that we use these technologies.
    Diana Carsey



MTC-00025894

From: Mal Morley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    After perusing the proposed settlement, it appears to me that 
consumer interests have been well served, and the time to end this 
costly and damaging litigation has come. Please close this suit 
without further ado.
    Thank you,
    M. A. Morley
    Pasadena, TX



MTC-00025895

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been using a PC since 1982. I am retired now and living 
in a large retirement community. I am pleased to see so many senior 
citizens age 70 and over getting new computers and learning how to 
make use of them. Our computer club now has over 2000 members! This 
growth can only be attributed to the simplicity of use that 
Microsoft has built into its Windows operating system.
    I vividly recall the state of affairs in the early days of the 
PC. The odds were that if you bought a software package it would be 
so complicated to use (assuming it was possible to install it 
correctly) and so poorly integrated with other software, that much 
time, effort and money was wasted. I doubt that the computer 
industry would be as strong as it is today, and still growing, if 
Microsoft had not been able to innovate to build in features that 
make the software simple to use. If they did go a bit too far, the 
PC User has been the benificiary.
    I don't have any sympathy for those who complain that they 
cannot compete with Microsoft. Build a better product and it will 
sell! By continuing to pick on Microsoft, the government is, in 
effect, subsidizing incompetence because only rivals who have 
nothing to offer will benefit..... Not the PC User or the American 
people!
    If Microsoft overstepped some bounds, government settlements 
have already been achieved. Enough is enough! Get off Microsoft's 
back and let them get back to innovating and growing the industry. 
The American people deserve it.



MTC-00025896

From: Stuart Powell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    Having been found guilty of abusing its monopoly position in the 
IT market place, it seems odd to me that the proposed settlement 
amounts to nothing more than a light slap on the wrist for 
Microsoft, and then offers measures that will potentially further 
their stronghold in this market. This case should not end with a 
settlement. Microsoft has been found guilty of a crime and should be 
punished. By acting to find a settlement in this case that involves 
input from Microsoft themselves, the message is put across that 
corporations of this size and power base are above the law. Having 
been found guilty, they should be punished; it is that simple.
    As a global player, Microsoft has abused its position the world 
over. As such, would it not be prudent to seek advice from the 
governments of other countries as to a suitable punishment, instead 
of the perpetrator ?
    Microsoft must pay the price for its past misdeeds. Does the US 
government really want to seem to be less powerful than Microsoft in 
the eyes of the world ?
    Yours faithfully,
    Stuart Powell.



MTC-00025897

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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

[[Page 27718]]

future, not only in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of 
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 Klempel
    PO box 392
    Hazelton, ND 58544-0392



MTC-00025898

From: Cody Fyler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your settlement of this case is too lenient on Microsoft. They 
stifle innovation, charge too much for their products, and produce 
software that is full of bugs and security holes, and we have no 
choice but to buy it, as they have eliminated all competition with 
predatory business practices. Even when they buy a good software 
product and add it to their line, they manage to screw it up. Please 
reconsider, and throw the book at them.
    Cody Fyler
    Web Developer
    Wells Fargo Financial



MTC-00025899

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    The enclosed file is my letter expressing my approval of the 
settlement agreed to by Microsoft and the department of justice in 
November of 2001. I think it is a sound and fair agreement. It is 
high time that the books are closed on this matter so that 
competition and innovation can resume. Dragging this litigation will 
cause additional coast and delay competition.
    Sincerely,
    George Hilal
    CC:
    [email protected]@inetgw
160 Pearlcroft Road
Cherry Hill, N J, 08034
 Email: [email protected]
Jan. 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you to indicate my support for settling the 
antitrust suit against Microsoft. I believe that the agreement 
reached in November is fair for everyone involved, and that it 
provides a reasonable solution to the government's wishes to expand 
competition in the technology market.
    Offering consumers new options to remove Windows programs from 
their computers in favor of those by competitors is only one of the 
ways that Microsoft would change the way it conducts business with 
the public and other corporations. The change affects the entire 
spectrum, from rival companies in the technology sector, down to the 
individual consumer. The government cannot ask for more sweeping 
changes than that.
    I urge you to settle the antitrust case because its merits were 
never fully proven, and enough time and money has been spent trying 
to do so.
    Sincerely,
    George Hilal



MTC-00025900

From: Hugh Solaas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I would like to go on record to support a rapid execution of the 
existing Microsoft settlement. I believe it is fair and would like 
to see Microsoft getting back to putting all their energy into 
creating products and jobs, not lining the pockets of lawyers.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Hugh O. Solaas
    7302 NE Twin Spits Rd.
    Hansville, WA 98340



MTC-00025901

From: Hemant C. Patel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding such ongoing attacks on Microsoft / Bill Gates,
    I am seriously concerned, as a very active user / supporter, of 
Microsoft products and a strong believer in how well established the 
company has been all these years investing huge sums of monies 
accompanied with vast resources of human efforts to achieve such 
high standards in new directions of technology in all the superb 
products / services they provide, I believe the United States 
Government should put an end to people who try to unfairly accuse / 
sue the company for its business success / policies. Instead of 
encouraging such actions they should put an end to this process that 
is a total waste of money and time, and concentrate in supporting 
future research / development of new directions in the Information 
Technology / related fields. The same resources that are being 
wasted in these negative fruitless efforts if employed positively 
would benefit the United States of America as a leading force in 
this vast field of Information Technology and benefit the worlds 
people. Why is it that the Government even allows these false 
groundless accusations to reach such stages and attack individuals 
like Mr. Bill Gates who has achieved monumental goals successfully 
to provide such beautiful innovative technology for use by all? I 
just hope that there is some serious effort to put an end to such 
waste of resources as this is the very time we should hope for a 
United and strong effort to support the best we have for the future 
as it will only get better with such support.
    Hemant Patel



MTC-00025902

From: Marie Taney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:08am
Subject: comment period
    Microsoft has shown disdian for the american judicial system, 
ignored a ruling in the early 90's has crushed or absorbed many 
companys to keep its monoply position.
    The only real sulition is for Microsoft to be forced to reviel 
all the API's in thier opperating systems in an effort to level the 
playing field. Microsoft has caused great harm in the computing area 
and has overcharged for its opperating systems causing harm in 
American economics
    Marie Taney
    Monterey California



MTC-00025903

From: Camille Mahant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:07am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I am an admirer and stockholder of Microsoft Corporation, whose 
products have let me produce high performance work and are better 
than those of their competitors, some of whose tools I've tried.
    Respectfully, I request that the U.S. Department of Justice 
accept a settlement with Microsoft, and recommend that the 
individual states who have chosen not to accept it re-consider.
    I also have a personal opinion on the recent AOL lawsuit against 
Microsoft over Netscape--this is an old story and, you know, 
AOL has sour grapes in an area where Microsoft has superior service 
and coverage. I think AOL deserves to be countersued for harassment 
of Microsoft and should not be allowed to use the legal system to 
attack its competitor which it is unable to surpass in any real 
business or technical area.
    Thank you.
    Camille Mahant
    42299 Wild Mustang Rd
    Murrieta, CA 92562
    909-600-8904



MTC-00025904

From: Ron Munier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is fair.
    Indecision is hurting the economy and the consumer.
    Ron Munier
    Houston, TX



MTC-00025905

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:14am
Subject: January 26, 2002
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this correspondence is to congratulate you on 
your decision to settle the Microsoft antitrust case. This conflict 
has cost you and Microsoft time and resources that can now be used 
for other priorities. Outside special interests with an extreme 
anti-Microsoft bias are seeking to undermine this settlement. This 
is regrettable because the settlement will create a more fair and 
open technology sector of our economy. Microsoft has agreed to offer 
more information to competitors so they will be able to create more 
competitive software. Microsoft will also make it easier for 
competitors to place software on MS systems

[[Page 27719]]

in the future. A technical committee that includes a permanent 
government monitor will enforce all provisions of the settlement.
    If the settlement goes through Microsoft and the Justice 
Department will be relieved of the burdens of this case. I feel it 
is necessary for you to resolutely support this settlement to ward 
off elements that have no interest in seeing this case settled.
    Sincerely,
    Louie Gracey



MTC-00025906

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft vs. DofJ Settlement
January 26, 2002
    To Whom It May Concern;
    As a citizen and, most importantly, a veteran, voter and 
taxpayer I cannot understand why the DoJ is still wasting the 
taxpayers money and its valuable time. The Microsoft settlement is 
the face-saving end to a wholly unconstitutional, politically 
corrupt attack on this successful business. The depths of corruption 
displayed by the previous Administration in falsely bringing on this 
suit are, forever, a blight on this nation's integrity.
    The present Administration and its DoJ representatives bring 
nothing but disgrace and contempt on themselves for pursuing this 
frivolous action even to the extent to which you have brought it 
today.
    Settle the damned suit and get on with real problems such as the 
WAR!!
    A less than impressed citizen, veteran, voter and taxpayer,
    Jim Bronson, KC8RBI
    Frankenmuth, Michigan



MTC-00025907

From: Allen Threatte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:14am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To who it may concern:
    As a senior who uses the internet and computer software, I urge 
the government to accept and comply with the negotiated settlement 
with Microsoft. The breakup of the software company will lessen the 
ability to work through the internet and will be more complicated.
    It seems that the competitors of Microsoft are only thinking of 
monotary results and not the expertise and ease of operation of a 
computer by elderly people and a learning public.
    Yours in Christ:
    Allen Threatte
    323 Tattnall St
    Claxton, Ga. 30417
    912-739-1850
    [email protected]



MTC-00025908

From: Robert J Goad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I believe that the settlement of the Microsoft case had dragged 
on far to long. It is time to initate the settlement and get on to 
far more important things. To allow Microsoft competitors to 
continue to insist on larger penalties is not in the best interest 
of the general public, as far as I am concerned. I am not a 
Microsoft fan, but enough is enough.
    Sincerely,
    Robert J. Goad
    8441 Flagstone Drive
    Tampa, Florida 33615-4915
    email address: [email protected]



MTC-00025909

From: phoebe--f
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:15am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I will be brief... At this time our country needs this strong 
company to be free from these sorts of litigation... they need to 
continue on creating and providing products that are easily 
accessed... as a senior citizen nothing has made my life more 
productive then the constant support from the folks at Microsoft. I 
understand that they are a stiff competitor lets just let them 
resolve this grievances .
    To all the very difficult work you all are doing our hats are 
off. sincerely,
    PHoebe Fensterman,
    Richmond, Va.



MTC-00025910

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the whole lawsuit was financially, politically 
motivated and outright unfair right from the start. It was brought 
into court by people who just could not compete with their own 
talent with Microsoft's PC operating systems. We still use Microsoft 
exclusively in all our PC's end user applications and probably 
always will.
    However, if Microsoft is willing to live with the final decision 
they should be given the opportunity. They believe it is the best 
place to start over and so do I.
    The only reason the opposistion is not satisfied is they were 
hoping the courts would hand them the keys to the PC operating 
market.
    Hal Roberts
    Cisco Constellation TE
    Solectron Texas LTD
    708-6285 Pager
    425-4039 Phone



MTC-00025911

From: Terrence Kearns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:17am
Subject: MS Antitrust Settlement
    The proposed MS settlement not only fails to punish MS for its 
clear monopolistic and anti-competitve practices, it does nothing to 
promote a fair market place, and actually solidifies Microsoft's 
monopoly. The idea of MS ``giving'' equipment and software 
to needy schools is like the dope peddler ``giving'' free 
samples to the uninitiated. Once MS gets the new schools hooked on 
their operating system, the schools will soon need the next upgrade, 
and that one will not be free. Of course the schools will get 
government grant money to give to Microsoft for the next 
``needed'' upgrade, and the one after that. MS has 
cleverly furthered its monopoly while giving a public appearance of 
being generous and charitable. It seems as though the DOJ is taking 
the position that, ``in this time of economic crisis, we dare 
not do anything to harm Microsoft because Microsoft is the only game 
in town.'' Well, that's the whole point, isn't it.
    The proposed settlement, by continuing to stiffle alternative 
operating systems, results in vulneratility to info-terrorism. 
Terrorists interested in bringing down the economy by introducing 
computer virus have a perfect opportunity when there is essentially 
only one operating system to deal with, and that one full of 
security holes.



MTC-00025912

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The antitrust settlement between Microsoft, the Department of 
Justice and the nine states presents a very excellent conclusion to 
what has been a prolonged matter. Microsoft is being harshly 
punished but has, nonetheless, accepted these punishments. The 
litigates should declare victory in this suit and continue on in 
their jobs by prosecuting terrorists, drug dealers, money launders, 
and other direct threats to the security of the populace. The 
settlement is, in fact, an excellent opportunity for the industry 
and the consumer. The industry can now return to competition in the 
marketplace where the consumer will be offered all products and have 
the decision to decide the fate of Microsoft. With this real and 
evident competition, Microsoft and the industry will be in a 
position to innovate and improve their product offerings. America 
and its economy stand at a critical point in our progression. At no 
other time in this generation have the threats from abroad 
endangered us as much. We, as a country, must progress and not 
stagnate through continued gerrymandering. The best way to do this 
is for Microsoft to return back to its mission of creation, 
innovation, and manufacturing (creating jobs in America during a 
recession when stimulus is needed). The Microsoft settlement ought 
be ratified and this litigation must stop, for the good of the 
children and the future.
    Sincerely,
    James P. Hohmann
    St. Paul, MN



MTC-00025913

From: Chris Hruska (Grad)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    -Chris Hruska



MTC-00025914

From: L. Frank Turovich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft (MS) should not be allowed to walk away from the 
damage they have done to both competitors, like Netscape and Sun,

[[Page 27720]]

and subsequently, consumers of desktop computer products. Allowing 
Microsoft to continue as they have will lead to them having even 
more of a monopoly over our life, in more areas, then ever before.
    To bring an analogy into the picture, it's not totally accurate, 
but hints at what I am trying to say. When the Ford Motor Company 
first starting producing Model-Ts, it was said you could buy them in 
any color, as long as it was black. To bring this into our day and 
time, you can buy any x86-based computer from any major PC company, 
as long as it runs MS Windows.
    Now, due to the demands from the customer, and competition from 
other car manufacturers, Ford eventually was forced to offer cars in 
other colors simply to remain competitive. This in turn led the 
other car manufacturers to compete in other ways, to differentiate 
their product, and remain competitive. This competition has improved 
the cars themselves, drove innovation, and created several dominant 
car manufacturers, each one competing on a level playing field. 
Along the way it built up a huge billion dollar industry that 
continues to drive our economy.
    Microsoft is in the same superior position that Ford once held, 
but unlike Ford, MS has such a stranglehold over their product line, 
their buyers, their software producers, their customers, that 
competition is not encouraged but stifled. Ford was unable to block 
other manufacturers from creating new products simply because he 
didn't own the paint companies other companies bought from, didn't 
own the steel mills that sold steel to competitors, nor owned the 
roads upon which competitor's cars could drive. MS does own these 
things, and they use them to monopolize the marketplace, control 
access to the market, stifle innovation, and as a base to expand 
their control into more areas of our life.
    I for one, do not wish to live in a world where the only choice 
I have in auto color is black, nor one where my only OS and related 
software is produced by Microsoft. Not only would it be incredibly 
boring, but it takes away my fundamental right to choose. If their 
is only one option to buy, there is no choice. Having a MS-only 
world is a sure sign of the stagnation of ideas and competition and 
the decay of our technological infrastructure, and while it may look 
good in the short term for our economy, the long term will surely 
suffer enormously from this restriction.
    Please make the correct decision to by reject the current 
settlement as written, go back to the bargaining table, and reach a 
solid, strong agreement that encourages competition in our 
marketplace, encourage innovation, and discourage any monopoly from 
using their vast power to extend their reach into other areas,.
    Thank you,
    L. Frank Turovich



MTC-00025915

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Noel Harris
    Rt.3, Box55
    Cuthbert, GA 31740



MTC-00025916

From: mike foland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    It's time to move on! As a ``Top 5% of Americans'' 
taxpayers to the U.S. Treasury, I feel the government has reached a 
FAIR settlement with Microsoft. Let's move on! The DOJ has other 
things to worry about(Sept. 11th terrorists) to pursue this matter 
which only benefits Microsoft's competitors. The measures presented 
in the settlement are fair and both sides can live with that 
agreement. It's time for the Federal government to move on the other 
pressing problems. Let's spend those tax dollars fighting foreign 
enemies.
    An American Taxpayer



MTC-00025917

From: Paul Grabowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:25am
    To Whom it may concern,
    I have been a small businessman for over 20 years, and in the 
beginning we had a staff of 8 or so people, doing about $250,000 of 
sales a year. Now am selling over a million dollars of goods a year 
with a staff of 3 people.
    At that time, I saw the need for computerization in order to run 
my business more efficiently and accurately with less overhead. At 
that time there weren't any personal computers, and I was forced to 
spend over ten thousand dollars in equipment and programming ( this 
was in the early 80's) to have someone design a simple program that 
merely did job cost estimating. This was an outrageous amount of 
money to spend to acquire such a simple task. To learn about DOS was 
beyond my comprehension and desire.
    I have learned that the simple solution to success in business 
is to ``find a void and fill it''. By this I mean to find 
out what people's needs are and to service those needs with 
simplicity and as little discomfort to the consumer as possible.
    I know that Bill Gates did this very thing buy of course on a 
much larger scale.
    Competition is a wonderful and needed thing in America, as the 
consumer is the one benefiting the most from businesses forcing 
themselves to be more professional and offering services and 
products that are better and less expensive than they would be 
otherwise.
    However, just because someone is smart and has foresight and 
energy to extremely simplify and market a product does not create a 
monopoly.
    UNDERSTAND THIS STATEMENT:
    I DO NOT FEEL FORCED TO BUY OR USE MICROSOFT PRODUCTS.... I 
CHOOSE TO BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANOTHER PRODUCT THAT DOES THE SAME OR 
MORE AT AN EQUAL OR LESS PRICE.
    Tell the losers that do not have the smarts or know-how to 
accomplish this task to quit crying in their beer and blaming 
Microsoft for their own failures. I am a Veteran of the Armed Forces 
and sacrificed much for this country of ours so that folks can be 
successful here and hopefully to create a better place for us and 
everyone else in the world.
    So back off Attorney General..... you should salute Bill Gates 
and his Microsoft staff, not castrate them
    Paul M. Grabowski
    President of Tallahassee Kitchen Center Inc.



MTC-00025918

From: willie northway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:28am
Subject: atrocious
    Please don't allow the biggest threat to competition in any 
market to walk away unpunished. Microsoft was found guilty of 
monopolistic practices, even while their lawyer is in court, the 
company is busy pulling off further scams to extend their 
stranglehold over the computing market and our future.
    Punish Microsoft, not consumers.
    - Willie



MTC-00025919

From: mike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    The Microsoft settlement is NOT a just punishment, it allows 
them more market penetration. Please see that Microsoft is punished 
such that they do not continue as a monopoly. thanks,
    Mike Landrus
    Austin Tx



MTC-00025920 FROM: Carol A Ghenic TO: MS ATR DATE: 1/26/02 
10:27am SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement

George Ghenic
1760 Culver Avenue
Dearborn, MI 48124
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

[[Page 27721]]

Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am contacting you because I would like to request that you 
strongly support the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust 
case. We must conclude this case.
    Microsoft has been held in court by the government for too long. 
This settlement will allow Microsoft to return to business and get 
out of the federal courts. Microsoft has compromised much in this 
settlement, including agreeing to disclose the proprietary code to 
competitors. Nevertheless, some opponents of Microsoft may try to 
undermine the settlement. They would like to see Microsoft damaged 
in court, and that is wrong.
    I thank you for taking the time to consider my views on this 
issue.
    Sincerely,
    George Ghenic



MTC-00025921

From: Ed Greenfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to let the Department of Justice know that Margaret 
and Ed Greenfield are in agreement with the Settlement with 
Microsoft and would like to see this Long and Costly Mess be settled 
soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Ed Greenfield
    618 Emilie St.
    Green Bay, WI 54301



MTC-00025922

From: Christian Provenzo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Parties,
    I do not believe that it is right for the United States 
Government to punish successful entrepreneurs such as Bill Gate and 
his Microsoft Company simply because they beat the competition in a 
fair market. Microsoft is simply more successful because it makes 
better products, and integrates them effortlessly for the user. If 
Netscape wanted to compete with Microsoft, they should have created 
their own operating system. Nothing prevented them from doing so. To 
punish Microsoft simply because they created a successful operating 
system is wrong, and to impose a sanction that limits the programs 
that Microsoft can develop as a conglomerate is unconstitutional. If 
Microsoft wants to give Internet Explorer away with its operating 
system, it has every right to do so. If another Software company 
wants to do the same, then may the best products prevail. The bottom 
line is it is not the U.S. Government's place to determine what is 
in the best interest of the consumer, that right belongs to the 
consumer. Microsoft has not forced anyone to use their products; 
people buy them because they like them. Consumers are the ultimate 
deciding factor which determines the success or failure of a 
business. Microsoft's success is a direct result of consumer 
support. Any action taken against Microsoft is an assault on the 
freedoms and rights of individuals to be successful and pursue their 
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Such an action 
can only be seen as insult to what America has always stood for, 
freedom.
    Sincerely,
    Christian A. Provenzo
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025923

From: Jack (038) Dixie Leslie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
    ALL OF US GET TO WORK........IT'S TIME TO STOP THIS PERSECUTION 
OF BILL GATES AND MICROSOFT..............
    JACK AND DIXIE LESLIE



MTC-00025924

From: Rickey Dockins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:30am
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,
    Rickey A. Dockins
    San Angelo, Texas



MTC-00025925

From: Howard W Granoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    In my opinion this Microsoft thing should be settled as quickly 
as possible. I say damn the selfish interests who stand in the way 
of progress and what is good for our wonderful country. Get on with 
doing whatever is necessary to complete the job and the hell with 
those selfich rats that stand in the way.
    Sincerely,
    Howard w. Granoff
    Senior Citizen



MTC-00025926

From: Margaret Anderson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margaret Anderson
12861 Telfair Ave
Sylmar, CA 91342
January 26, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret Anderson



MTC-00025927

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,

[[Page 27722]]

    William Cook
    1303--14th St
    Monroe, WI 53566



MTC-00025928

From: Tedd Potts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    US Department of Justice:
    What specifically did Microsoft do that was illegal? When one 
looks closely it becomes obvious that Microsoft's 
``crimes'' were: choosing whom to do business with, 
setting the terms of those business relationships, pricing some 
products ``too low'', and pricing other products 
``too high''.
    It is important to remember that we are all producers: at a 
minimum, we produce manual labor and the thought required to make it 
valuable. Microsoft did not defraud anyone, so if one argues that 
government should restrict Microsoft's choices, then it would follow 
that they would wish government to restrict any producer's choices, 
once the government decides that that producer is too successful.
    Note that Microsoft is a target only because they are 
successful. If they were the size of Apple Computer they would be 
left free to make their own choices. So, under present American 
anti-trust regulations, a producer is left relatively free until the 
government decides he is too successful, at which time the 
government begins to limit his success and reward his lesser 
competitors.
    This not the proper use of government power in a free society, 
otherwise all producers, all individuals, would be at the mercy of 
arbitrary government decisions regarding the ``proper'' 
level of success.
    That environment would more akin to Communist China's than 
``the land of the free and the home of the brave''.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,Don 
Potts,Dwight ...



MTC-00025929

From: Patricia Schlinkmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:31am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    AS AN ADVOCATE OF FREE ENTERPRISE AND PROUD OF OUR AMERICAN 
SYSTEM, I URGE THE DOJ TO ALLOW MICROSOFT TO RUN THEIR BUSINESS FREE 
OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.
    FREE ENTERPRISE IS THE BASIS OF OUR AMERICAN WAY. DON'T GET INTO 
THE OVER-REGULATING. ALLOW MICROSOFT THE FREEDOM TO BE THE BEST. 
GIVE THE COMPETITORS THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE COMPETING BUT DON'T DO IT 
AT THE EXPENSE OF THIS GREAT COMPANY.
    PATRICIA H. SCHLINKMAN,
    3401 HIGHWAY 90 EAST,
    SCHULENBURG, TX. 78956



MTC-00025930

From: Al O'Brien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:40am
Subject: microsoft settlement
37 Buckingham Drive
Dix Hills, NY 11746
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to express support for the anti-trust settlement 
that was reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice in 
November of last year. I would like nothing more than to see this 
matter put to rest, and settling is the right thing to do for all 
parties involved.
    Microsoft's business operations will be watched over by a 
technical committee that will ensure Microsoft's full compliance 
with all of the agreed upon terms. If any independent company has a 
complaint against Microsoft that company may immediately have its 
case heard by this committee.
    Microsoft will share information with its competitors on 
Windows, and it will design the operating system so that non-
Microsoft software can be built into the operating system. I believe 
this is sufficient to end this case at this time.
    When this settlement becomes final, the strong competition in 
the industry will benefit consumers by providing more to choose from 
in the marketplace. The industry will receive a real boost, and this 
will in turn stimulate America's dwindling economy. I am looking 
forward to the positive effects this settlement will have on our 
country.
    Sincerely,
    Al O'Brien



MTC-00025931

From: kenneth nolde
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:44am
Subject: MICROSOFT Settlement
    To Whom it may Concern: I am against continued harrassment of 
the Microsoft corporation. I believe that the suits brought by the 
U.S. government is frivilous and not in the best interests of the 
United States, U.S. consumers, and competition in general. I believe 
that the USG and the various states should cease-and-desist action 
against Microsoft, it now is overt extortion.
    Dr. Kenneth Nolde



MTC-00025932

From: MIKE SEIKEL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am in favor of the agreed upon settlement with Microsoft. 
Let's end this and move on.
    Mike Seikel
    2604 Echo Trail
    Edmond, OK 73013-6732
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00025933

From: Donald F Fix
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs: Being a Senior the Internet is an important daily 
occupation. The recent legal settlement with Microsoft and it's 
competitors seems to be adequate. I feel it is a waste of TAXPAYER 
money to penalize the AMERICAN way of competition in business,and 
should end with this settlement. I think there are many other 
problems affecting we AMERICANS that need to be tended to. Please, 
help us older AMERICANS, allow us to have our affordable INTERNET!!
    Donald Fix
    [email protected]



MTC-00025936

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:53am
Subject: Fwd: Fw: MSFT Settelment.
    In a message dated 1/25/02 9:43:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes: 
[email protected]
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: [email protected]
    Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:38 PM
To: [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]; Neil--
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: MSFF Settelment.
    Following is a letter I am sending to the attorney general in 
support of MSFT case settlement. If you agree in settlement and 
would like to forward, following is the Email address etc.
    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
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support of the United States 
Department of Justice's recent efforts to settle the Microsoft 
antitrust lawsuit.
    This case really should not have been brought against Microsoft. 
Microsoft's innovations have and continue to contribute immensly to 
the productivity and economy of the United States.
    Microsoft single-handedly through ``Window's Operating 
System'' made computers accessible to the world. Computers are 
now in virtually every household and bussness in the country.
    Microsoft may have been aggressive in their business dealings, 
but that is the way of the business world in a free-market society. 
Aggressive business tactics are not necessarily the same as 
antitrust violations.
    Despite my feeling that this case should not have been filed, at 
this stage of the game I think the wise course of action is to 
settle

[[Page 27723]]

the case. The settlement agreement the parties negotiated is fairly 
reasonable.
    It will require Microsoft to refrain from retaliating against 
computer manufacturers that install software other than Windows on 
their computers. Along those same lines, it will require Microsoft 
to not retaliate against software developers who develop programs 
that compete with Windows. These concessions should help the 
competition operate on a more level playing field.
    I appreciate your efforts to settle this case.
    Sincerely,
    Roger Cox



MTC-00025937

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The United States is the most free country in the world. We can 
build a better mouse trap, market it, and make lots of money in the 
process. In the case of Microsoft it did just that; it made better, 
easier to use computer software, and sold it at a fair price. If 
Microsoft is made to share its secrets, the public ends up with 
software that is harder to use and more expensive. This will only 
hurt the consumer, business and private. The message you are sending 
to everyone is ``yes, go ahead. Invent something new and 
improved. Market it and make lots of money--BUT do not get too 
big, do not make too much money, or the government will force you to 
go out of business or share your secrets and pay fines. This sounds 
like a two-year old saying ``I want your toy and I want it now 
and you have to give it to me because I said so.'' Jealousy? It 
seems when something works great, is cheap, and the public benefits, 
the government steps in and forces the issue to break it up. Who 
loses? I do, along with the rest of the public.
    Marianne Ippoliti
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00025938

From: Fred Burk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:55am
Subject: LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE.
    To whom it may concern:
    Over the last few months I have asked several of my friends, 
``when do you think this present economic turn-down started 
?'' They all respond, my stock investments started their big 
declines when the last administration started the lawsuites.
    Microsoft has done not one thing to hurt the ever day P.C. USER 
,ONLY MAKE THE P.C. EASY TO USE. YES, there are few FAT cat 
companies that found it hard to compete with Microsoft. FREE 
ENTERPRISE AT WORK. IF I am wrong about this, please show me.
    Thank you, Fred



MTC-00025939

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed Microsoft settlement should be 
approved for this reason:
    The Microsoft Settlement is a fair plan that will help the U.S. 
economy, which depends on firms like Microsoft for the innovation 
necessary to bring about growth in technology.
    Sincerely,
    Carolyn Rhinehart



MTC-00025940

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While you're busy persecuting a well run honest productive 
company (Microsoft) the ``foxes are raiding the hen 
houses'' Enron. Enron have too many political ties to attack 
them?
    Carl Radtke



MTC-00025941

From: Jason Nash
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my concerns regarding the Microsoft and 
USDOJ settlement:
    1. I believe the settlement is fair to all parties involved, 
possibly too harsh on Microsoft. I am OPPOSED to any additional 
restrictions or sanctions that may be added to the settlement.
    2. I am extremely disappointed with the nine hold out states and 
I hope every Attorney General in those states lose their re-election 
bids.
    3. The USDOJ should stop pressing companies like Microsoft that 
innovate and help our economy and go after companies who are true 
monopolies and damage our economy and consumers. Target No. 1 should 
be
    AOL Time Warner.
    Regards,
    Jason L. Nash
    Toni S. Nash
    9472 E Valley Ranch Pkwy
    Apt 1057
    Irving, TX 75063



MTC-00025942

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Mary Moseley
    P.O. Box 451
    7685 Rose Lane
    Keystone Heights, FL 32656



MTC-00025943

From: Larry R. Staton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:58am
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    Just to add my two cents worth as a private citizen. I am 
concerned that the proposed settlement is insufficient in its depth 
to address all concerns as to monopoly practices. While I believe 
that Microsoft produces a number of very fine products, I have 
concerns that this settlement does not go far enough towards 
eliminating monopolistic marketing practices within the commercial 
computer/software/operating systems environment.
    Larry Staton
    Eastlake, Ohio



MTC-00025944

From: Gail Bradbury
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I beleive the proposed settlement, will in the end, do little to 
dissuade Microsoft from continuing to abuse its current market 
position. It absoulutely has been shown they will stifle any 
technology that is of any potential threat to them.
    Netscape was effectively killed off as just one example. Please 
send a clear message and impose strict enforceable standards on 
Microsoft so REAL innovation is not stepped on in the future.
    Thanks for your consideration.
    Scott Clark
    609 W. 35th St.
    Austin, Tx 78705



MTC-00025946

From: Eugene D Gray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:03am
Subject: [email protected] .
    To The Justice Department;
    I am sending my strong opinion to the Justice Department to 
counter the self-serving and punitive lobbying effort of Microsoft's 
competitors. Under the current law the U.S. District Court is to 
decide whether the settlement is in the ``public 
interest.'' The consumer interests have been well served, and 
the time to end this costly and damaging litigation has come.
    Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few 
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one 
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
    A loyal American Citizen,
    Eugene D. Gray
    P. O. Box 154
    Fairmount, IN 46928



MTC-00025947

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 27724]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Randy Beem
    PO Box 491956
    Redding, CA 96049-1956



MTC-00025948

From: Bob Ketcham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft represents a failing of 
the DOJ to do its job. The settlement should be much more than the 
weak, inconsequential, easy to subvert items proposed.
    Microsoft has done much, many times to damage companies and 
innovation though its monopoly tactics. The current case represents 
prosecution of only a fraction of the many cases that could have 
been brought. This was a significant instance of those many cases. 
They have been found guilty. They are a Monopoly. Because of the 
cost of bringing this case to trial and conclusion and the 
likelihood that the cost of further cases will be prohibitive, the 
punishment for this case should be the maximum allowable. Like 
stopping Al Capone on Income Tax evasion, this case represents a one 
time chance to stop major criminal activity.
    The current settlement will do little to stop Microsoft's 
inappropriate approach to business. They will be allowed to continue 
to ruthlessly damage anyone who dares attempt to compete with them. 
They will be allowed to continue to do much damage to the industry 
as a whole. The settlement must be rejected and a more appropriate 
remedy found. Please stop this travesty and find remedies that 
aren't a joke. Please remember that the anti-trust laws are designed 
to protect the many simple citizens like me from the damage done by 
predatory businesses like Microsoft. I will remember how this 
administration chooses to balance that scale of justice when I next 
visit the ballot box.
    Thanks for this opportunity to comment.
    Robert S. Ketcham
    2021 Sandy Coast Circle
    League City, TX 77573
    [email protected]



MTC-00025949

From: WILBERT E LENNICK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:04am
Subject: STOP LITIGATING AGAINST MICROSOFT!
    STOP THE CONTINUOUS LITIGATING AGAINST MICROSOFT WHICH COMPANY 
IS HELPING THE SENIORS.
    [email protected]



MTC-00025950

From: Chad P
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    It has been my experience that politicians and bureaucrats 
frequently need issues illustrated in a political, economic or legal 
perspective context rather than appealing to a sense of common good 
or other such idealisms.
    Dealing with Microsoft harshly is your chance to show that 
regulators are not swayed or pressured by well-financed lobbying and 
shady spin doctoring. This is your chance to punish an arrogant 
company that uses Enron-like strategies to keep its position.
    Right now, the Enron campaign contributions and political 
efforts reflect poorly on government.
    Microsoft is also a very politically active and influential 
corporation. In light of the public's perception that Enron bought 
political favor, it would be a great step to re-instill faith in the 
institutions charged with overseeing our free market if those in 
power acted effectively and decisively against Microsoft.
    I am in favor of either a breakup of Microsoft and/or the 
release of some of their key source code to the public at large. The 
latter remedy will no doubt positively effect the Windows Operating 
System and result in some true innovations.
    Regards,
    Chad Prukha
    an IT Operations



MTC-00025951

From: Scott Newell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing in response to the proposed MS Monopoly settlement. 
It does nothing to prevent future bundling of software, as they have 
already begun with their media player.
    Microsoft has already shown contempt for previous judgments, and 
unless this one has a little more teeth, they will continue to 
illegally crush their competition and rob their customers (i.e. Most 
people and businesses.)
    Scott Newell



MTC-00025952

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    HERBERT BRUNWIN
    266 ENCANTO AVE
    PISMO BEACH, CA 93449



MTC-00025953

From: Fred Thorn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First, it was Hillary redesigning our health care according to 
Marx;
    Then, it was Janet Reno selecting our browser for us (even tho 
she didn't know beans about the subject)
    Now, it's various politicians redesigning our autos to make them 
more ``politically correct''.
    Beans again!
    I have used both browsers for five years without any difficulty 
in selecting one over the other....despite not being a computer 
``nerd'' but rather a 75-year old layman, with just enough 
knowledge to know which hole to punch on a ballot: (R)
    Our computer industry has brought us better and faster service 
at a less and less cost; unlike the states'' track record of 
more and more taxes.
    It is just a money grab not unlike the tobacco wars.....only 
this time our whole economy is at risk.
    Fred & Joyce Thorn
    2731 St. Cloud Oaks Dr.
    Valrico, FL 33594
    (813) 689-8989



MTC-00025954

From: joebash
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:14am
Subject: Dear Sir:
    Dear Sir:
    Why on earth would the clinton Administration & Justice 
department find it necessary to destroy one of the most productive 
employer in the United States. All because of some whiney 
competitors who can't make it without the help of the most corrupt 
group of politicians in our long history. Leave Microsoft alone and 
maybe it will give the country a good boost out of the clinton 
inspired recession. There are plenty

[[Page 27725]]

of real problems for Washington to deal with. Why not get on with 
the building process.
    Joe & Betty Bannan
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00025955

From: Dan Barthel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:14am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    I believe that the proposed settlement agreement between 
Microsoft and the DOJ is woefully inadequate. Having been found 
guilty of major antitrust violations, concrete sanctions and 
proactive remedies need to be applied. My suggestions are those of a 
technologist, not a lawyer. These views have evolved over years of 
frustration trying to build cross platform applications for Windows 
and the Macintosh. After years of working with Microsoft, I am 
certain that they will never willingly comply with the following 
suggestions. Thus, these sorts of concrete remedies must be imposed 
by the court.
    1. The ruling specifically mentioned Microsoft's predatory 
behavior regarding Java, Netscape Navigator, and Apple Quicktime, 
and for that matter the Real Player. An appropriate remedy would be 
to have Microsoft ship each of those products as supplied by the 
originator of the package with every copy of the Windows operating 
system. An example of Microsoft arrogance was the unilateral 
decision to stop shipping Java with Windows XP. There was no 
technical reason to do this, but the business reason was to again 
cause disruption and frustration at the consumer level for easy 
access to non-Microsoft technologies. The rational for this 
suggestion is having caused harm, repair the harm.
    2. Microsoft must supply all current and past file formats for 
their layered applications to anyone who requests them. These 
formats should be documented fully so that independent developers 
can access the binary data for Microsoft Office and all other 
applications which use a proprietary file format. Microsoft should 
be specifically prohibited from removing backward file compatibility 
to existing file formats as a means of insuring interoperability. 
Any proposed changes must be made publicly available at least six 
months prior to release of products incorporating these changes.
    3. Microsoft must supply documentation to all wire protocols for 
access to system functions, including, but not limited to: SQL 
Server, Message Queue, Transaction Server, Directory Services, and 
File Sharing. These protocols must be made freely available to 
anyone. Any proposed changes must be made publicly available at 
least six months prior to release of products incorporating these 
changes.
    4. Microsoft must be ordered to comply with, and not extend, W3C 
standards. Browser features not part of the W3C XML, XSL, HTML and 
DHTML specifications must be removed from current products. This 
point is extremely important, as abuse of standards in this area was 
used effectively by Microsoft to win the browser war with Netscape. 
Microsoft has also demonstrated the ability to inhibit 
interoperability with the changes made to the open Kerbros standard, 
and with ``creative'' changes to the SQL-99 standard. This 
is one of Microsoft's favorite tactics to close doors of 
interoperability.
    5. Microsoft must be ordered to implement comparable and 
compatible feature sets for cross platform products. In particular, 
the IE browser for the Macintosh must be improved to the full 
feature set of Windows-XP.
    6. Access to source code must be granted to all, particularly 
the open source community, not a select few as is the case in the 
proposed settlement. As written, the current agreement will allow 
Microsoft to remain a king maker with selected partners.
    7. Microsoft should be forced to drop all partnerships and 
alliances with other companies. All companies must have equal access 
to Microsoft technologies. Early access of information, if 
available, must be made available to all interested parties. Non-
disclosure information to 3rd parties should be prohibited, and made 
freely available to all.
    8. Volume discounting should be prohibited. One price to all. 
Period, the end.
    9. Bundled pricing should be prohibited. Office should cost the 
same, with or without a computer or operating license purchase.
    10. Competitive upgrade pricing should be prohibited for all 
Microsoft products, even those that do not enjoy a monopoly 
position, as simple branding of any Microsoft product implies the 
monopoly.
    11. Beta testing of new products must be made available to 
anyone who requests participation.
    While these suggestions may seem highly technical, they are the 
kinds of things that can enable competition in the computer 
community. They are a) concrete, b)open access to all, particularly 
the open source community, c)encourage and enable the cross-platform 
interchange of information, d) enable the community at large free 
access to the data they own, now locked up inside proprietary file 
formats.
    The current settlement relies on Microsoft's willing compliance 
with the proposed terms. In the past, Microsoft has proven itself 
adept at stepping through loopholes with great ease. What we need 
are concrete actions to open access to the technical information 
required to interoperate successfully with Microsoft products so 
that innovation and completion can take place. It is easy to judge 
compliance with the suggestions above. Microsoft should be found in 
violation if any of the above suggestions are not complied with in a 
very tight time period, as delay of information is effectively 
denial of information in this industry.
    Microsoft will argue that no other company has to comply with 
these terms. But no other company has been found guilty of serious 
antitrust violations. And, as an interesting aside, many companies, 
Sun, Macromedia, Adobe, Apple, and others, already offer the kinds 
of access to technical information proposed above. These are not 
wild haired suggestions, but suggestions that already work.
    Hopefully, you lawyers will get some solid technical input 
before letting Microsoft sneak out the door unfettered to develop in 
secret, change standards at will, and continue to frustrate 
interoperability. As to the pricing remedies, it is hard not to see 
the benefit of one price to all, one relationship with everyone.
    Regards,
    Dan Barthel
    [email protected]
    941-389-5610



MTC-00025956

From: Judy Sawyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:19am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I believe Microsoft and the D.O.J. has reached a settlement and 
Time Warner, Napster, and the 9 states left in suits do not have the 
consumers in mind at all while continuing these frivolous law suits. 
They have a angry desire to'' tear the heart out of 
Microsoft'' as one Red Hat supporter wrote. This will all cost 
the consumer in the latest soft ware that could be developed. and 
higher prices. Time Warner and AOL just went up on our cable bill 
last month from $54.00 to $64.00. Please bring us closure on these 
ridiculous law suits Judge.
    Thank you,
    Jennifer Brunson
    E-mail [email protected]



MTC-00025957

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:15am
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,
    Jane Brasovan
    38 Quiet Peace Place
    The Woodlands,, TX 77381



MTC-00025958

From: Preston Sanders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of it because it will help us seniors.



MTC-00025959

From: John Cowan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:18am

[[Page 27726]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
613 Navarra Drive
Scotts Valley
CA 95066
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
U. S. District Court
Washington DC
    Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am very disappointed with the settlement agreement the Justice 
Department has negotiated with Microsoft Corporation. It does 
practically nothing to constrain Microsoft's anti-competitive 
practices. I am particularly concerned about the provisions that 
require Microsoft to make public its Application Program Interface 
(API) and the one that prohibits Microsoft from penalizing customers 
who resell software from other vendors. This excerpt from an article 
by James Mathewson in the January 2002 Bay Area Computer User 
Magazine describes the problem better than I could: ``Actually, 
the settlement codifies the legality of Microsoft's predatory 
practices. What it takes away with one hand, it gives back with the 
other, and then some. For example, it does force Microsoft to share 
its Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) with the competition. 
But it also forces those who use the APIs to share their finished 
code with Microsoft. The result is that Microsoft would see all of 
its competition's trade secrets and easily replicate them. Or, 
though the ruling ensures that Microsoft competitors be allowed to 
get their icons on PC desktops, the clause only applies to companies 
who have sold more than a million copies of their software in the 
United States. The very companies who need a competitive advantage 
in this case can't get it.
    ``And these two qualifiers are indicative of the whole 
agreement. The clincher: Microsoft would be barred from terminating 
a PC vendor's license agreements because the vendor cooperated with 
one of Microsoft's competitors. But it could still terminate the 
agreements, because if it did, the vendor would have to take it to 
court for violating the antitrust provision. How many small clone 
shops can afford to fight Microsoft in court? If the government ran 
out of money trying, not even Dell would fight Microsoft for the 
ability to put a Quicken icon on a Dell desktop.''
    I ask that you please require Microsoft to publish its APIs on a 
public web site so it is available to all, that you require 
Microsoft to allow all its customers to put whatever icons they wish 
on the desktop and that you require Microsoft to sell its operating 
system products to all buyers without penalty, regardless of 
whatever other business arrangements they make, and without the need 
to bring suit.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    John F. Cowan
    [email protected]



MTC-00025960

From: charles varano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:19am
Subject: John Aschroft
    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 and carbon copy it to your Member of 
Congress. We believe that it is essential to let our elected 
officials know how important this issue is to their constituents. 
The public comment period for this issue ends on January 28th. 
Please send in your letter as soon as is convenient.
    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.
    Carbon Copy:
    Rep. Spencer Bachus
    Fax: 202-225-2082
    For more information, please visit these websites: 
www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/ www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm
    The letter follows:
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write you as a Microsoft supporter to urge you to help support 
the recent settlement in its current form. The many concessions that 
have been made by Microsoft include changes in licensing changes, 
marketing requirements, and even design restrictions. It is obvious 
that Microsoft is working toward bettering the entire IT sector. Let 
us help them do so by helping this settlement move forward. As our 
economy goes under some strain, it is important for us to support 
all of our technologies in order to maintain our position in the 
global market. By delaying an agreement such as the Microsoft 
settlement, we slow down the advancement of our IT sector and tie up 
their time in litigation. This is not what we need in the technology 
industry during a time of recession. Let us make sure that there is 
no more actions taken against this well thought out settlement. Let 
the terms speak for themselves and allow us to better help the 
consumer, the technology industry and our economy as a whole.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Varano
    195 Calumet Drive
    Birmingham, Alabama 35242
    cc: Representative Spencer Bachus



MTC-00025961

From: Christian Skeem
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:15am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern
    As a layman, I find it absurd that such an obvious case of 
``dumping'' and anticompetitive behavior has not met with 
the severest form of punishment. If there is to be any lesson drawn 
from this expensive and exhaustive process, at this point the 
government seems content with letting it be ``if you're rich 
enough and powerful enough, just let us slap your wrists and be on 
your way''! And please, just because a judge used poor judgment 
(pun intended), is no reason the U.S., nay the WORLD consumer should 
be punished and left without choice.
    I admit to not knowing the fine points of the laws regarding 
monopolies and anticompetitive behavior, but it doesn't take an 
expert or a genius to figure out that if you use your leverage and 
your money to give an expensive piece of software away 
``free'' (i.e. Internet Explorer), you are going to drive 
your competition (i.e. Netscape) out of business without much of a 
fight.
    The internet is too important an arena to allow someone so 
blatantly anti-democratic and opportunistic as Bill Gates become 
(remain?) the dominant force.
    ACT NOW! Appeasement of tyrants is rightly a concept consigned 
to infamy.
    WAKE UP! When it's so obvious to a layman that the EMPEROR (the 
government) HAS NO CLOTHES! you may be able to sleep through this 
round, but this will come back to roundly bite us all in our 
collective naked ASSES!
    DO SOMETHING!
    Christian Skeem
    1919 West Bradley Place
    Chicago, IL 60613
    773-832-4696
    [email protected]



MTC-00025962

From: Warren Bryld
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I am writing to express my support for the 
settlement your office reached with Microsoft in November in regard 
to its ongoing antitrust litigation. I feel that enough government 
and taxpayer money has already been spent, and Microsoft should be 
able to get back to business.
    I am familiar with the terms of the settlement, and they are a 
reasonable way to bring the case to a close. Disclosing unique 
Microsoft programming codes will better equip competitors to develop 
programs that operate smoothly within the Windows system, and 
providing users with new options to remove different programs and 
replace them with competitors'' versions will leave everyone 
with more freedom of choice.
    The settlement was reached in November, so I urge you to end the 
case with no further delay. The government should comply with the 
terms it agreed on with Microsoft. Not doing so would fly in the 
face of being honorable and upfront--two things that the 
government claims were reasons for bringing a suit against Microsoft 
in the first place.
    Sincerely,
    Judy Bryld



MTC-00025963

From: Ardith Brown

[[Page 27727]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:20am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    It is time to end this stupid law suit. Lets settle this now. 
The only people that are interested in not settleing this is the 
attorneys who are making all the money. Let Microsoft get on with 
its business.
    Ardith Brown
    17106 E. LaPasada
    Fountain Hills, AZ 85268



MTC-00025964

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Joella Cramblit
    2 Regent Wood road
    Northfield, IL 60093



MTC-00025965

From: r-a-l
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The terms of the antitrust settlement between Microsoft, the 
Department of Justice and the nine states is fair and equitable to 
all parties.
    It is now time to move forward.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Laczko
    1234 Naranca Avenue
    El Cajon, CA 92021



MTC-00025966

From: DenverD
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/26/02 11:24am
Subject: hurting in Denmark
    I'm just a little user that is STILL hurt every single day in 
Denmark because of Microsoft's aggressive and illegal practices 
since 1987..
    for example:
    --in 1994 i bought OS/2 Warp version 3 and was one click to 
the internet a year before MS got there (with the release of 
Win95)..
    --that version 4 (which was cheaper than Win95 or 98) 
remains stable, usable and just fine for almost everything i need, 
EXCEPT when i try to go to almost ANY web site inside Denmark with 
my Netscape Explorer browser.....it just will NOT work with (for 
example) my bank  the bank has a 
full service, on-line facility written entirely for MS Internet 
Explorer ONLY....I asked about that problem to my friendly bank man 
and the OFFICIAL company policy is: 99% of our customers use 
Internet Explorer and we will NOT support any other..
    how did it get that way? MS sold ``Front Page'' at 
give away prices...an HTML authoring software pack deliberately 
crafted to produce web sites which will not work with Netscape AS 
SHIPPED..
    find a Dane in the DC area and ask them to check out Denmark's 
web sites with ANY non-Microsoft browser except Opera (which was 
designed from the ground up to TRY to keep up with MS's constantly 
changing tricks)..
    DenverD
    A Texan in Denmark
    www.Texan.dk



MTC-00025967

From: Johan Lotter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft



MTC-00025967-0001

    In the spirit of full disclosure, I own Microsoft Stock. The 
Justice Department action against Microsoft, started by the corrupt 
Clinton administration, has cost me a great deal of money in my 
retirement funds. I shall remember the great and wasteful injustice 
done against this wonderful company forever and I shall vote against 
any politician who did not actively come out in support of Microsoft 
on the day your suit was first filed. I use Microsoft products 
whenever they are available, because they are, in a word, superior. 
Most of the other stuff simply does not work as well. I have 
actually purchased some of the Microsoft competitors'' products 
and ``thrown them away in disgust'' because they did not 
work as well as they should. I was opposed to the entire law suit 
against Microsoft. I felt it was brought by a bunch of 
``whiners'' who were unable to compete on design, 
execution and service. I think Microsoft should never have been 
prosecuted, however, if Microsoft finds the settlement 
``acceptable'', that should be the end of the story. I 
want you to cease and desist in your persecution of Microsoft. I 
believe my attitude is typical of vast numbers of US voters.
    Put an end to this nonsense!
    --Johan Lotter
    [email protected]
    --EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.



MTC-00025967-0002



MTC-00025968

From: Paula Tyndale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is a 
really bad idea.
    Paula Tyndale
    718 CR 2415
    Eureka Springs, AR 72632



MTC-00025969

From: peter dunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:27am
Subject: Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    The Government's settlement with Microsoft must be approved to 
bring this case to a close. It is in the best interests of everyone 
involved. This settlement is opposed by certain interests that I 
believe are for self-serving reasons. After 3 \1/2\ years it is time 
to end this.
    Peter A. Dunn



MTC-00025970

From: Ben Larsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:26am
Subject: antitrust
    Please break up the Microsoft monopoly to ensure a productive 
future in computing.
    Thanks.
    Ben Larsen
    Salt Lake City, Utah



MTC-00025971

From: David D'Souza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft & DOJ Settlement needs to go through. A 
compromise has been reached by a majority of the stakeholders and I 
encourage the DoJ to support it. There is no need for the government 
to preserve the uncertainty on this matter. As we all know, 
solutions are never appealing to everyone but this one sets a fair 
balance for both sides.
    Thanks
    David D'Souza



MTC-00025972

From: Howard D. Watkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:31am
Subject: settlement
    THEY CAN NEVER REPAIR THE DAMAGE TO GEOS WORKS . I WANT MY GEOS 
WORKS BACK! I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BEG FOR A SIMPLE SOLUTION TO MY 
NEEDS.----H E L P------!!!!!?????
    HOWARD D. WATKINS
    [email protected]



MTC-00025973

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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

[[Page 27728]]

for states to get free money, and a terrible precedent for the 
future, not only in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of 
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 Miller
    4111 W. Arrowhead Rd.
    Duluth, MN 55811



MTC-00025974

From: Bob Blackburn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    We find it very hard that you have not been able to do the right 
thing and allow Microsoft to get on with it's business of making 
America the top of the world in technology.
    You realize that our whole economy started down the tube when 
the justice department started the witch hunt started by Senators 
who had tech companies in their states and those companies could not 
stand the fact that another company was better at their business 
than they were. We do not believe that Microsoft should be broken up 
nor should it have any kind of a harsh ruling as that again would 
severly affect the economy and hurt many of us who have been hurt 
already from the downturn of the economy. We felt that the agreement 
that Microsoft and the DOJ came to earlier was a fair one for all 
concerned.
    Pat and Bob Blackburn



MTC-00025975

From: Steven J Spain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For years, Microsoft developers have pushed harder and harder to 
create new and better experiences for end users. As an independent 
software developer and student of Management Information Systems, my 
current station depends on Microsoft; if not for the advances 
brought by Microsoft, I would not be pursuing a career path I find 
so satisfying. Microsoft corporation has done so much to bring 
computing to the masses and to improve the lives of so many people 
that I, as a consumer, cannot find any way in which they have harmed 
me. I do not see where any violations of antitrust law were actually 
damaging to me. Please accept the proposed settlement in the 
interest of putting this lawsuit behind us and ending the expense of 
taxpayer dollars on it. Thank you.
    Steven J. Spain
    [email protected]



MTC-00025976

From: Brian Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:42am
Subject: Comments on US vs MS
    It's my opinion that the govt should get this thing over with 
and goes with the terms of the settlement.
    I still do not believe the Govt understands the new playing 
ground in the world of Technology and is applying OLD and ARCHAIC 
practices to an area so dramatically different than anything we've 
ever seen as related to business in the past. This is a typical case 
of force fitting just because this is the way we did things in the 
past. A lot what has happened here is due to the fact the Good Old 
Boys in Washington are so obviously out of touch and are unable to 
grasp new concepts and realities.
    I am especially UPSET with AOL/Time-Warner's ``SOUR 
GRAPES'' attitude being taken seriously in the first place. 
They are upset that they AREN'T GETTING THEIR WAY ---THAT IS 
HAVING IT ALL FOR THEMSELVES. They only have themselves to blame 
because they didn't listen to their customers and therefore produced 
products such as AOL and NETSCAPE that are just INFERIOR PERIOD. In 
my mind the US govt should start action against AOL/Time-Warner for 
trying to do what they claimed Microsoft was doing. I believe AOL/
Time -Warner are truly trying to monopolize the internet and data 
streaming (music sites in particular) and force people to use their 
inferior and inadequate products systems like AOL and NETSCAPE. I 
personally never chose AOL because it was obvious to me what they 
were doing early on and I selected local ISPs for my internet access 
as my own statement. This is a good example of a megaforce like AOL/
Timer-Warner using their MEGABUCKS to get influence and power in 
govt to get their way --- and when money gets involved its 
amazing how our govt reps cave in and do their bidding. I personally 
do not buy anything connected with AOL/Time-Warner because I believe 
they are corrupt. I own no Microsoft stock or Aol stock so I HAVE NO 
VESTED INTEREST IN EITHER. I call it the way it looks. 
RECOMMENDATION: INVESTIGATE AND START LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST AOL/
TIME-WARNER ASAP!!!!!!!!
    I FOR ONE WILL CONTINUE TO BUY MICROSOFT'S PRODUCT AS A SHOW OF 
SUPPORT FOR THE WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST AND FOR WHAT THEY 
ARE TRYING TO DO WITH TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS IN THE FUTURE.



MTC-00025977

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Pete Carnagey
    18283 Highway DD
    Everton, MO 65646



MTC-00025978

From: Joe Carroll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Though I'm not a big fan of Microsoft practices, I am a fairly 
content business user of microsoft products. I cannot fault 
Microsoft for trying to make money as I do the same 6 days a week. 
If a company is forced to make their product serviceable or 
standardized or even priced by what the court orders, we have 
diminished the basic American freedom and right to pursue happiness. 
Though I don't care for some of the Microsoft policies, I don't run 
the company and don't have to pay their bills. No one put a gun to 
my head when I bought the products.
    I am a mechanic by trade. I own an auto repair facility. Will I 
soon be forced into a pricing structure and way of doing business 
that is determined by court order? Will all the incompetent 
shadetree mechanics of the world unite and try to control my right 
to pursue happiness?
    Though it's not a popular opinion, I fully support The Microsoft 
position. Bill Gates my be the richest man in the world but that 
does not obligate him in any way to share with me any more than I 
would feel obliged to hand over my account records or earnings to a 
hobo who's jealous of my position. If I don't like the Microsoft 
products or their policies, I don't have to buy the product. I can 
and did actually survive for many years without a computer. There 
are alternatives out there. Windows is not the only OS out there. 
I've tried them all; UNIX, Linux, Free BSD, Solaris, PC-DOS, and the 
list goes on. In the end I still chose windows because overall, It 
is a superior product. There are choices out there but they just 
don't measure up. Why should Microsoft be punished for 
``building a better moustrap''?
    Joe Carroll
    [email protected]



MTC-00025979

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:40am
Subject: A Microsoft Public Opinion
    Dear Lawmakers,
    Please allow Microsoft to go on with building the nations 
economy. Microsoft has done the public a GREAT SERVICE by 
standardizing the method in which we use software. Through the 
Windows format we are able to add numerous software programs without 
the added cost and memory space of having multiple foundation 
systems for the software to run on. This has simplified the process 
for the software developers as well by enabling them to build onto 
windows rather than including bulky basis data with every program.
    Some reform may be deemed necessary, but let's work it out and 
get the forward progress of this great nation back on it's feet 
again...ASAP.

[[Page 27729]]

    Thank You for your consideration,
    J Pellegrini and C Pellegrini



MTC-00025980

From: Leta Hawn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 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 reached in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. It is time to put this matter behind us 
and get back to business. I, personally, did not support the initial 
lawsuit. I think Microsoft's competitors were using the legal arena 
to try and cripple their most innovative rival. We complain about 
the economic slowdown but hamstring the one company that is most 
responsible for much of our economic vitality over the past decade.
    Further, I understand that Microsoft has been more than 
accommodating with regard to the demands from the Department of 
Justice. Microsoft has agreed to allow computer makers to ship non 
Microsoft product to a customer; Microsoft has agreed to a uniform 
price list; Microsoft has agreed to disclose their internal source 
codes. This is way more than I believe any other firm would be 
willing to do.
    I urge you to give your approval to this agreement.
    Sincerely,
    John Hawn
    211 Windemere Point Drive
    Mount Gilead, NC 27306



MTC-00025981

From: Barbara MacArthur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is time for this ridiculous attack of Microsoft by our own 
government to end. Microsoft Corporation has created and helped 
create a huge industry that has benefitted millions of Americans. I 
consider it senseless to attack a successful AMERICAN company that 
has greatly increased the prosperity of Americans and the American 
economy. As a consumer and an American, I am in full support of 
competition in the market place without government deciding who 
shall compete. This action brought by Clinton's Justice Department 
has wasted public funds in order to take sides in something that 
should be left to the market place. It's time to end it!
    Barbara MacArthur
    Vacaville, CA
    [email protected]



MTC-00025982

From: Marilyn Braiger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:46am
Subject: Settlement
    I have sent my letter to the fax number given in your memo. Good 
luck!
    Marilyn Braiger



MTC-00025983

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is inadequate. Microsoft is not 
sufficently punished for its misdeeds or sufficiently restrained 
from future anticompetitive action.
    Yours truly,
    Eric Roush
    [email protected]



MTC-00025984

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Roy McClure
    1069 Broad Ave North
    Naples, FL 34102-8104



MTC-00025985

From: Mike May, S.J.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:43am
Subject: Comments on proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Having reviewed the relevant documents, it is my opinion that 
the proposed settlement in the case of the United States of America 
v. Microsoft Corporation is not in the public interest. I base my 
opinion on a number of considerations:
    1) The settlement gives the impression that the rich and 
powerful, even when found guilty, can avoid paying the fair 
consequences of their guilt, simply because they have the resources 
to appeal. I note that the federal court found that Microsoft 
systematically violated the anti-trust laws of the United States and 
of several individual states. This violation came even though 
Microsoft had previously entered into a consent decree on anti-trust 
issues. The appeals court upheld that finding. Given that 
background, the public interest requires that any final disposition 
of the case include the legal verdict that Microsoft is guilty, and 
that Microsoft either acknowledge its guilt, or agree that it will 
not contest its guilt on these matters in any legal forum.
    2) The settlement can only achieve its stated goals if either 
the government intricately involve itself in technical business 
decisions, or if Microsoft can be trusted to make routinely make 
subtle interpretations against its strategic interests to promote 
competition.
    The settlement has a myriad of provisions that are open to wide 
interpretation in implementation. To mention two specifics, deciding 
if an API is related to security and deciding if a business decision 
constitutes retribution are both decisions that routinely need to be 
made for the settlement to be effective.
    It is to be noted that the main reason the government gives for 
entering into the consent decree is that Microsoft will take all 
possible appeals to decisions it views as contrary to its interests. 
Past behavior indicates that this is true. It is unreasonable to 
expect such deeply ingrained behavior to change with the filing of a 
decree in which Microsoft still contends it has done nothing wrong.
    The length of the current legal proceedings show that government 
oversight of whether Microsoft's business decisions are anti-
competitive will be inefficient at best. Furthermore, as a matter of 
policy, the government should try to avoid remedies where it needs 
to involve itself in day to day business decisions. Thus it should 
avoid relying on behavioral remedies unless it has reason to expect 
questions of compliance or non-compliance will routinely be settled 
in a non-contentious manner. Given the history of this case, 
structural remedies are clearly called for.
    3) The settlement does not address the issue of substantial 
advantages Microsoft acquired through a an extensive pattern of 
illegal activity.
    The Federal Court found, and the Appellate Court upheld, that 
Microsoft has illegally extended and protected its monopoly through 
anti-competitive practices. In doing this it has harmed consumers 
and competitors and has gained profit and an even more dominant 
competitive position. The public interest requires that at least 
some of the illegally gained advantage be relinquished.
    To give a context for my remarks, I am a private citizen, not 
employed by Microsoft, any of its competitors, or any government. I 
do not have stock or other financial interests in any party to the 
case.
    Sincerely,
    Mike May, [email protected]
    CC:Mike May S. J.



MTC-00025986

From: Henry W. Tyler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:47am
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
    Competitors have no right to property owned and created by 
another Company. The Government has no right to take this property 
and give it to another Company. I founded and own a software systems 
company, we have customer and competitors, I don't expect the 
Government to steal my assets.....I hope the States forget their 
political agenda and drop any further action.
    Henry W. Tyler
    13 Bellevue Dr.

[[Page 27730]]

    Treasure Island, Fl. 33706
    [email protected]
    727-367-7809



MTC-00025987

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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 campaign against Microsoft. Microsoft's 
success is based on its marvelous work ethic. Netscape used to be a 
much better product than Internet Explorer, but after long hard 
work, Microsoft has improved its product. It is now the best, and 
fully deserves a place on the desktop. The attack on Microsoft is an 
attack on hard work and success. It devalues entrepreneurship and 
depresses the stock market. It is an attack on our economy. Please 
stop.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Steinberger
    29 Woodstead Rd.
    Ballston Lake, NY 12019-1624



MTC-00025988

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Though I did not receive the draft letter from Microsoft 
(probably deleted it not recognizing what it was) I will attempt to 
put into my own words what I think about the case.
    I am a small stock holder, a retired illustrator, 74 years old. 
I own an equal number of shares of Microsoft and Sun Microsystems, 
but am glad to see that Sun's shares have suffered even more than 
Microsoft's, because I believe Scott McNeely set out to organize all 
the other less successful companies to try to destroy Microsoft 
because of his own exteme envy of Bill Gates.
    I believe Bill gates has benefited the entire world more than 
any other person in history, including Andrew Carnegie. Of course, 
he has been competitive. That is the way of a Capitalist country. I 
doubt if any of the critics would have done less if they could have. 
As I understand it, the anti-trust laws were created to protect the 
public from monopolists being able to raise prices to the public. 
Microsoft has not done this. Nobody in the public has been forced to 
buy a Microsoft product. They have done so, because of the creative 
innovation of Microsoft's products.
    The Judge who ordered the breakup of Microsoft was obviously 
prejudiced, so it went to the Appellate court which has handed down 
a less severe punishment, which Microsoft has agreed to.
    Why all the states are suing, I don't understand, unless it's 
simply greed, and now Europe is trying to cash in on it, too.
    At this point we certainly shouldn't be trying to destroy 
argueably the best company in the country. Will competitors next go 
after Dell, because Michael Dell built a better mousetrap?
    I read that China's economy did better this past year than any 
other country's, and bought more computers than any other country. 
We have far more to fear from China's becoming the next greatest 
superpower in the world, than our most successful companies.
    Thank you for your consideration of my opinion,
    Respectfully,
    Elaine Gignilliat



MTC-00025989

From: Mary (038) Steve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe the settlement reached with microsoft is fair and 
should not be further pursued.
    Mary Satterwhite



MTC-00025990

From: J. Jentink
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is BAD, BAD idea!!!
    I have been in the US computer industry since the late sixties 
and there exists no threat to the long term American economy that 
approaches where Microsoft is headed. Allowing them to continue 
their shady practices and underhanded tactics based on monopoly and 
monetary power must stop. We must come down on them hard and 
immediately. The proposed settlement is less than a hand slap. We 
need some real teeth in terms of immediate penalties to aid those 
harmed, a prohibition of Microsoft expanding their tentacles into 
new areas and a totally independent mechanism for makes certain 
their practices are brought back into the norm of honest and fair 
business practices.
    1) The quality and reliability of Microsoft products are at a 
level that would be unacceptable in any field without monopoly 
control.
    2) Any company that choices to partner with Microsoft has 
brought about their own death. Some are bought but for most, their 
intellectual property is usurped by Microsoft.
    3) Almost no innovation is happening within the areas of 
Microsoft control. Companies know that every innovation they 
introduce will eventually be taken by the evil monopoly. For 
example, it is almost impossible to get venture capital for software 
development today. The people with the money know that Microsoft 
will use its power to take it for their own and then they will have 
to pay the costs of fighting a legal battle with the big money 
machine. They know historically that there is not winning, 
eventually Microsoft will prevail. NOTE: The drying up of venture 
capital money and the greed of the investment bankers lead to the 
unsustainable tech market and crash.
    4) The only things that Microsoft seems to be afraid of today 
are truly open standards that they can not ``embrace and 
extend'' and the Linux ``free and open'' operating 
system. One should note that Linux is a essentially a product of 
Europe and often associated with their institutions of higher 
learning. There is little input from US institutions since our 
universities take our public money but instead of giving new 
technologies and software developed using this money back to the 
public, they sell or license them for additional income.
    If these trends continue, the world will eventually need a 
solution to the high cost and low quality of Microsoft products. By 
that time, only countries like India and China or the EU will have 
the ability to produce systems and products independent of 
Microsoft's control. Such a turn of events will dramatically reduce 
our now dominant position in computing, networking and information 
engineering to that of a third rate contributor, with a heavy toll 
on our economy and quality of life.
    Thank you for your attention, orignal email sent with wrong 
Subject line.
    J. Jentink



MTC-00025991

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to settle the suit in favor of Microsoft so that we 
can move forward, not backward. Microsoft's contributions to 
communication and technology and the world need to be recognized so 
that this country can go forward.
    Diane Wender



MTC-00025992

From: Jeffrey C. Graber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:55am
Subject: DOJ: It is my opinion that the DOJ should end this anti-
trust action
    DOJ: It is my opinion that the DOJ should end this anti-trust 
action against Microsoft and settle this case now in the interest of 
fairness and the U.S. economy.
    Jeff Graber



MTC-00025993

From: Elliot Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In relation with the current matter:
    I have a number of questions and comments about the proposed 
Technical Committee (TC) and the Internal Compliance Officer that is 
mentioned in the proposed final judgment for the United States v. 
Microsoft Corporation case. These questions concern the 
qualifications and responsibilities of the TC as mentioned in 
Section VI dealing with the compliance and enforcement procedures.
    The requirement of not allowing the any member having worked 
with Microsoft or its competitors no longer than a year ago does not 
appear to be logical for the first members of the TC. This is 
because the complaints occurred during 1998 concerning activities of 
the Defendant in 1996. While I do not expect the requirements to 
force the TC members to not have any history with Microsoft and/ or 
its competitors for the last 5 years, I would believe that a 
revision to the judgment to consider a background check to more

[[Page 27731]]

carefully choose candidates that are not involved with Microsoft 
and/or its competitors for a minimum of two to three years. Such a 
revision to the final judgment would allow the members of the TC to 
provide a more unbiased perspective of the Plaintiff during his/her 
term of stay.
    The TC should also be required to take notice of all activities 
and provide a report of findings and information to be stored in a 
secure location of the member1s discretion. While this can be 
assumed as part of the judgment, it was not stated in the proposal. 
By adding a responsibility to loosely monitor the Compliance Officer 
and its staff, if any exist, and write a history report of 
complaints filed by logs of the website the Compliance Officer is to 
create. This log history report should also include a monthly to 
yearly review of the compliance officer that is appointed by the 
Plaintiff who monitors all complaints filed either by the website or 
through other sources. This would provide a balance of power between 
the responsibilities of the TC and those of the Compliance Officer. 
This would provide a greater margin of safety from possible 
mismanagement of the Compliance Officer.
    Under Section V.B concerning extension of the final judgment due 
to systematic violations, the extension should not be limited to 
one-time extension of two years with possible relief. If it is 
proven that the Plaintiff has digressed from the judgment, the 
Plaintiff should be required to continue for an extension of up to 
three years with necessary relief, with the possibility of a 
following two year extension with possible relief afterwards if 
digression continues. This suggestion reflects the fact the 
Plaintiff practiced anti-trust activities for a period of several 
years against a number of competitors. Modifications of the final 
judgment may be necessary in order to stay up to date with the 
times.
    Sincerely,
    Elliot Scott



MTC-00025994

From: Bill R Bartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:55am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Hi, I just want to add my few cents on this matter. The MS 
operating system SHOULD be a ``stand alone'' system. There 
should not be any other programs that ``come up'' with the 
operating system. When other applications are imbedded in the OS, it 
is extremely difficult for others to write good programs that are 
reallly fully compatible. It only takes a fraction of a second, 
given todays CPU speeds, to bring in another application. Please 
make the OS a stand alone system. Thank you. PS I'm retired, and 
have no ``skin'' in this, other than being a frustrated 
user.
    Wm. R. (Bill) Bartz
    977 Arnold Way
    San Jose, CA 95128
    408 971 8928 fax 408 971 8267
    [email protected]



MTC-00025995

From: John K. Hillman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I want to express my support for the proposed settlement. In my 
opinion it is best for Senior Citizens and the consumer. It is time 
to end all the litigation that has been costly and going on far too 
long.
    John K. Hillman
    [email protected]



MTC-00025996

From: Zdenek Becka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing to register my concern over the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I am concerned that this settlement does not ensure that 
Microsoft will in fact document its operating system APIs to 
Independent Software Vendors in the same manner as it does to its 
own Application Developers. Microsofts ability to include 
significant application components as part of the operating system 
makes me wonder how ISVs will be able to compete. Lets face it. MS 
makes good applications. I use them everyday. But much of the code 
is included in the operating system. When ISV applications are 
compared to MSs they appear to consume significantly more resources 
and so on. If ISVs are allowed to use those same OS/Application 
APIs, then we will all benefit.
    Thank you for listening to my concerns.
    Zdenek Becka
    5238 Sherrier Place NW
Washington, DC 20016



MTC-00025997

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Angela Millage
    4022 W. Mesa Street
    Battlefield, MO 65619



MTC-00025998

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It has been long enough, no, too long, in the courts. The terms 
and conditions are fair for all concerned. SETTLE IT! NOW!
    W.C. Gawlikowski
    14107 Forestvale Dr.
    Chesterfield, MO 63017
    1.314.453.9196



MTC-00025999

From: Felicity Marsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    AOL bought Netscape while the anti trust case was on 
going,assuming the government would slow Microsoft up with the court 
case and possibly hand Netscape a victory which would allow AOL to 
capitalize on that with little effort to itself. There never was any 
concern for the public in this case.
    The public benefits from affordable products.--Microsoft 
produces those. Netscape itself saw the benefit to the consumer of 
combining the server with the operating system and tried to do that 
before Microsoft ever did, even though it had a monopoly on servers 
at the time. That in itself demonstrates that in the world of 
technology a monopoly lasts only until a better product comes along, 
had Netscape been able to do a better operating system there would 
be no Microsoft to speak of.It was there product which did not win 
in the market.
    The public benefits from a system that is easy to operate.- 
Microsoft produces that,Netscape tried and failed, and can still try 
again. AOL is big enough to push that forward if it chooses.
    The public benefits from a stable product.- Microsoft was 
working on and has now produced that.
    The latter was what Sun Microsystems and AOL feared most and had 
to stop , one way or another, as that was the biggest threat to 
their businesses.
    The public has watched the economy sabotaged by hiked up values 
on the stock exchange as other companies thought they would make a 
fortune in Microsoft's demise, that never happened because a many 
faceted system is doomed to failure. Speaking with a single tongue 
is the only way forward for technology.
    Instead of straightening out its business problems, AOL has 
decided to spend its time and effort filing lawsuits against tough 
competitors--a petty, distracting pursuit that won't help AOL 
or, for that matter, the U.S. economy, which depends on firms like 
Microsoft for the innovation necessary to bring about a technology 
revival.
    It will hurt AOL most in the end as Microsoft has the will and 
ability to close its eyes to the distractions leave them to the 
lawyers and keep working on its products.
    My biggest concern in all of this is that while Microsoft is 
using its own money to fight this case and others, AOL and Sun are 
using tax payers money to fight their battles. The tax payers are 
not in unison about their tax dollars being spent that way -that 
money is needed elsewhere, particularly now.
    Tax payer with a different fiscal agenda,
    Felicity Marsh.

[[Page 27732]]



MTC-00026000

From: Joan Nims Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I think it is time to close the Microsoft Anti trust suits and 
get back to the economy and what is best for the consumers. I do not 
see how further legal action against Microsoft will benefit any one 
except her competitors. How is that the responsibility of the Dept 
of Justice or the US Government
    Joan Cook.



MTC-00026001

From: Les
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to respectfully request that the government accept 
the settlement, that has already been arrived at with Microsoft. It 
is high time that the competitors of Microsoft and the government 
recognize that the American system is built on capitalism. In the 
capitalistic system, only the most agressive and creative come out 
on top. AOL/Time Warner did not get to where they are by being fair 
to all of their competitors. They are no less guilty of being 
agressive to the point of beating their competitors than Microsoft. 
The bottom line is that Microsoft's browser is superior in every way 
to Netscape and therefore is used by more people. If AOL/Netscape 
feel that Microsoft has used its unfair advantage by integrating 
more closely to its operating system, let them write an operating 
system. That's the American way.
    Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
    Lester L. Smith



MTC-00026002

From: Don
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice
From: Don Phillips, Consumer, Engineer, Voter
    I believe the US Government should settle its antitrust suit 
against Microsoft immediately. The current proposed settlement 
should be approved and implemented as soon as possible. This lawsuit 
never, in any way, represented the interests of consumers. Microsoft 
has had a long track record of developing and selling software 
products that consumer like and use. The company's growth and 
profits are evidence of this. On the other hand, no credible 
evidence was ever presented during the trial (or after) to show that 
Microsoft ever did anything that was against consumer interests. 
Clearly this lawsuit never had any basis in fact and never should 
have been undertaken. In fact, the lawsuit, itself, has caused major 
harm to consumers and to the entire US economy.
    Also, the government's reputation as being objective and fair 
has been seriously eroded. In short, the whole process has been a 
disgrace to justice and an insult to American consumers.
    I have worked in the semiconductor industry for 30 years and 
have had many dealings with Microsoft as well as many of Microsoft's 
competitors. Also, I have personally used many products from 
Microsoft and from its competitors. Based on my long experience with 
technical products it is very clear to me why Microsoft's 
competitors have not prevailed in the marketplace.
    This lawsuit has clearly been shown to be nothing more than a 
thinly veiled attempt by weak competitors to do serious harm to a 
more successful company. This is very disgraceful behavior! For the 
government to continue to perpetuate this case would be a major 
miscarriage of justice.
    Respectfully,
    Don Phillips,
    Palo Alto, CA



MTC-00026003

From: Bryan Tighe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement does not provide enough 
regulations, rules, and other needed stipulations against Microsoft 
in order for the consumers of America to fully benefit.
    Because Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems, and 
maintains that monopoly through distribution of their own software 
with their operating systems, no other operating system can 
successfully enter into the consumer market. The consumers do not 
have a choice, and this is not in the best interest for American 
consumers. Instead, they are required to use one and only one 
operating system, and another of potential better quality is 
disregarded before even given its chance. Furthermore, Microsoft has 
a monopoly on many of its software products. It obtained these 
monopolies mainly through selling the software along with the 
operating system. If a consumer buys the operating system, they must 
buy the software with it. In addition to this, the software cannnot 
run on any other operating system. Likewise, Microsoft will not 
release all of the technical specifications nessasary to allow other 
software companies to create products of similar quality. If these 
other software companies do create software which competes with 
Microsoft's software, Microsoft has shown a history of giving their 
products away with their operating system. Then, consumers will not 
purchase the rival company's software, because Microsoft has used 
its operating system monopoly to choose the software for them. Of 
course, that ``free'' software is not truely free: somehow 
the cost must be justified, and the prices of other Microsoft 
products and operating systems will rise to cover the costs.
    Let's imagine that company A makes screwdrivers. That same 
company A makes screws. By a turn of events, the company becomes the 
dominant provider of screwdrivers, although many other companies 
still make screws. Also, the screwdrivers which company A sells are 
often questioned for their poor quality at performing their job and 
inability to resist breaking under pressure. Now, in this situaiton, 
if another rival company, company B, made a better screwdriver and 
sold it at a reasonable price, they would soon easily compete with 
company A. This is because consumers have a choice, and can choose 
which screwdriver to purchase. But, before company B comes to the 
market with the better screwdriver, company A decides that it will 
manufacture screws which can only be used with company A's 
screwdrivers. In addition, they give away these new screws with 
their screwdrivers. Since they have the monopoly on screwdrivers, 
this effectively hurts the other screw manufacturers'' 
businesses. Soon, the only company making screwdrivers and screws is 
company A. Also, since they will not release the specifications for 
their products, no other company can create the same type of 
screwdriver which uses company A's screws. Similarly, no consumer 
would purchase screws from another company because they are already 
``given'' screws from company A. Consumers do have the 
choice to buy screws from another company, but these other companies 
are already at a disadvantage, because they compete with a product 
that is free and ``readily available'' to any consumer 
which purchased a screwdriver from company A.
    The remedy for this problem is to somehow force Microsoft to not 
distribute any software with its operating systems. Then consumers 
would have the true choice over which software products to buy. 
Also, the second part of the solution is to force Microsoft to 
release all of the needed technical specifications so that other 
companies can create operating systems capable of running 
Microsoft's software. This would also allow other companies to 
create software which effortlessly runs on Microsoft's own operating 
systems.
    Breaking the company into two companies (one for the operating 
systems, and one for the software) would be an effective method of 
forcing the above requirements. But this might not be needed if the 
above requirements could be maintained by some type of watchful 
technical committee.
    The most important issue is choice for the consumer. Once every 
company has access to the needed technological information, then 
true choice can be given to the consumers of America. If one company 
creates a superior technology, and keeps it secret in order to make 
a profit, then more power to them. But once a company uses that 
advantage to force their products to be purchased over other 
companies'' products, then the consumer is no longer able to 
choose, and the proper steps should be taken to rectify the 
situation.
    Bryan Tighe
    Software Developer
    Arlington, VA
    Duke University Computer Science, class of 2000



MTC-00026004

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:06pm
Subject: Reply about Microsoft
    Dear Sir,
    Please see attachment that has my letter. It is called Microsoft 
litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Mario Turra
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 27733]]

1755 Tommy Lee Cook Rd. Palmetto, Georgia 30268
January 26, 2002
PERSONAL
Attorney General John Ashcroft
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    This is to express my opinion on the Microsoft litigation. The 
matter against Microsoft, in my opinion, should never have taken 
place. I think the settlement is appropriate and should take place 
as soon as possible.
    Respectfully,
    Mario Turra 1/26/02



MTC-00026005

From: Felicity Marsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Settle now.--Just do it, for the publics sake. We are fed 
up, and spent out, and annoyed with you spending our money without 
consulting us.



MTC-00026006

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Notice that I am a long time AOL subscriber, and have been for 
many years. Right now, I can access lots of Microsoft stuff, like 
Internet explorer, whenever I want to because it came with Windows 
98. All of the computer users that I know agree that we, as a group, 
would gain nothing, and lose much, if we could only have a stripped-
down version of Windows. Please do NOT make a decision that only 
benefits Microsoft's competitors, and adversely impacts average 
computer users.
    John Lawrence



MTC-00026007

From: Carol Leiby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is important to the computer industry and to the US economy 
that this trial be brought to a close. The settlement is fair and 
any more deliberations would be a waste of people's time and money 
that could be better spent.
    Carol Leiby



MTC-00026008

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:09pm
Subject: Re: SENIORS COALTION URGENT ACTION ALERT- Microsoft and big 
government
    This sounds like a fair settlement of Microsoft for all 
involved. I am a senior citizen and very active with computers. Many 
wealthy parties may not like that settlement.
    I will close this now.
    Eugene Bunt
    1409 S LUNA ST
    LAS CRUCES, NM 88001



MTC-00026009

From: Joyce Hlava
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs,
    I just want to register my objections to the proposed 
settlement. Living in Silicon Valley and working in the industry, I 
appreciate the fact that Microsoft does indeed establish a standard 
for most consumer PC products. The way they have done it though is 
unbelievably coercive. I remember being at a banking trade show 
about 5 years ago and talking to a Microsoft employee who was 
working the booth. It was really interesting because he had been VP 
of sales for a small company which was bought by MS. He said that 
this start-up had a great technology and had the ``normal 
problems'' (which means total stone wall trying to get 
information) from MS in order to make their product compatible with 
Windows. When MS realized what their technology did, it came to them 
with ``an offer they couldn't refuse''. They had to either 
sell or MS would develop the technology themselves and incorporate 
it for free. Having seen what happened to Netscape, a bigger and 
better financed company, the partners felt they had no choice. This 
is a story that I have heard over and over.
    The proposed settlement is only a slap on the wrist. It allows 
MS to saturate the education market in a big way. Since this is the 
only market with a serious operating system competitor (Apple), this 
isn't punishment, it's a reward.
    Joyce Hlava Ogden



MTC-00026010

From: Christopher R. Hertel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Renata B. Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Suite 1200
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Regarding: The Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am a member of the Samba Team, an international group of 
computer programmers who develop Samba, a free software product. 
Samba implements Microsoft protocols to allow non-Microsoft systems 
to interoperate with, and compete against, Microsoft's Windows 
products. Samba is ``Open Source'', which means that the 
source code is available for download via the Internet, free of 
charge, to anyone.
    Though Samba is a volunteer effort, our software has been 
adopted by many major computer vendors including Hewlett-Packard, 
IBM, and SGI. Several smaller companies have based their entire 
businesses on our code, and many organizations (including offices 
within the Federal Government) rely on Samba. We are, most likely, 
one of Microsoft's biggest competitors in the file-server market.
    Because Samba is critical to so many companies, some members of 
the Samba Team are employed to help maintain the code. This is 
unusual in the Open Source community. Most of us, myself included, 
are not paid for our work but participate because we enjoy 
programming and want to contribute. Other examples of community-
driven software include the Linux operating system and the Apache 
web server, both of which also compete against Microsoft products. 
It is difficult to estimate the number of Open Source projects under 
development, but the SourceForge service alone lists over 32,000 
registered projects and more than 340,000 participants.
    Clearly, Open Source represents viable competition against 
Microsoft. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement contains wording 
which would grant Microsoft the right to specifically exclude Open 
Source projects such as Samba from accessing information required 
for interoperability. In particular:
    * In section III.I, the settlement document discusses the 
payment of royalties and other ``monetary consideration''. 
Open Source developers generally do not keep track of 
``customers'' or collect any money for their products. It 
is, therefore, impossible to calculate or pay royalties or other 
fees. Further, the requirement that protocol and API information be 
licensed from Microsoft would make any such information unusable in 
an Open Source project. The term ``Open Source'' means 
that we make the source code available to anyone who wishes to see 
it, copy it, or modify it. That would certainly violate Microsoft's 
licensing terms.
    * In section III.J, Microsoft is granted the right to judge the 
``business need'' of a potential licensee, as well as 
their ``authenticity and viability''. Open Source projects 
such as Samba and Linux are not businesses. They are community 
projects, and would certainly be rejected under these criteria. 
Thus, Open Source developers are prevented from obtaining 
information about ``anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication 
systems'', exactly the kind of information that is needed to 
ensure interoperability with Microsoft products.
    There are several more examples in the document, but they all 
amount to the same thing: Open Source developers are being excluded.
    There are many arguments to be made against the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the Microsoft case. To me, the most striking is 
that Microsoft would be allowed to continue control access to this 
critical information. I urge the Department of Justice to withdraw 
its consent to the revised proposed Final Judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher R. Hertel
    885 Hague Avenue
    Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104



MTC-00026011

From: Patricia R. Prendergast
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:14pm
Subject: mocrosoft settlement
    I agree with the settlement for the Microsoft case vs. AOL and 
DoJ and nine states.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia R. Prendergast



MTC-00026012

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 27734]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:15pm
Subject: litigation
    It is time to stop the litigation against Microsoft and move on.



MTC-00026013

From: Kurt Zadina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Not good for the United States.



MTC-00026014

From: Robert Berg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:16pm
Subject: Tunney Bill
    Settlement of this costly litigation will allow all Americans 
freedom of the Internet and of such software as is needed.
    Robert Berg
    2435 Ocean Ave.
    Bklyn,N,Y.



MTC-00026015

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:17pm
Subject: Microsoftsettlement
    Please leave the settlement as it now stands. Everyone in our 
computer club agrees that we do not want a stripped down version of 
the Windows operating system. We gain nothing and lose a lot!
    Arline Lawrence



MTC-00026016

From: Nathan Alderman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    If I committed some significant white-collar crime, say, 
embezzlement; if, during the course of my subsequent trial, I made 
misleading (if not false) statements and instructed my attorneys to 
provide falsified evidence meant to bolster my case; if I was in 
fact, found guilty of my crime upon preponderance of the 
overwhelming evidence, yet continued to insist that I had done 
absolutely nothing wrong... ... would it then be just for me to 
dictate the terms of my own punishment? And would it be just for 
that ``punishment'' to officially absolve me of guilt, 
and, in exchange for spending the merest portion of the wealth I had 
accrued through my illegal and harmful practices, place me in a 
position to reap enormous future benefits and continue the illegal 
practices that I had been tried for in the first place?
    In my opinion, this is the situation at hand in the Microsoft 
case. The resolution to their crime may be uncertain at this time, 
but they have been found indisputably guilty in a court of 
law-- a court for whom they showed nothing but contempt, 
through repeated and clumsy attempts to mislead the court with badly 
doctored evidence and vague testimony.
    It runs counter to the fundamental nature of the American 
Justice System that Microsoft, through its vast wealth and political 
and public influence, should be allowed to escape justice, much less 
to profit from its crime with a newly established stranglehold on 
the education market. I salute the Department Of Justice's desire to 
save taxpayer money by seeking a quick resolution to this case. But 
I would argue that the eventual financial and economic cost to the 
average American citizen will ultimately be much greater if 
Microsoft's proposed remedy is put into effect.
    I hereby plead with the court and the Department of Justice not 
to allow Microsoft to profit from its crimes. For the callous 
disrespect they have shown to our justice system, and for the 
vicious and predatory business practices of which they have been 
found guilty, they deserve the harshest and most humbling of 
penalties. And they do not, I believe, have any right to decide what 
that penalty should be.
    Sincerely,
    Nathan Alderman
    San Antonio, Texas



MTC-00026017

From: Andrew Syka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As one who owns no stock in any of the companies objecting to 
the government's settlement, but am a user of Microfsoft's Windows 
95 operating system, I submit that the currently proposed settlement 
has to many loopholes which will permit Microsoft to continue many 
of its practices alleged to have prevented competition in the 
industry.
    Andy Syka



MTC-00026018

From: Thomas Corriher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Contact information:
Thomas Corriher
142 Redwood Drive
Mocksville, N.C.--27028
Phone: 336-391-2713, 336-936-0018 email:
[email protected], [email protected]
Summary
    This letter is to plead with the court that it use its wisdom to 
insure that the abusive monopoly of Microsoft is punished for its 
arrogant and reckless disregard for law. The proposed settlement 
does not place adequate restrictions upon Microsoft to prevent it 
from future abuses. The settlement actually gives Microsoft legal 
justification to continue its business as usual. The settlement was 
not a victory for the Department of Justice, it was a surrender. 
Microsoft has become a disgrace to our nation. They have associated 
their unique brand of predatory behavior which is driven by perverse 
extremes of greed to our entire information technology industry, 
while manipulating the justice system to comply with its agenda. It 
has earned itself the nickname, ``The Evil Empire''. I beg 
you, do something before it is too late. I am terrified of a future 
in which all information is controlled and monitored by Microsoft. 
You have a chance to save the world.
Your Honor;
    You bear an enormous burden, for you will make history. I am 
certain that you have read enough technology arguments in recent 
times to satisfy you for your lifetime.Your valuable time is already 
unduly limited.
Making A Mockery of U.S. Law
    There are seemingly countless examples of Microsoft's disregard 
toward the ethics of its own industry, and its brazen contempt 
toward the laws of the United States. Microsoft altered evidence 
during the trial in question, and was caught using altered video 
evidence. As we of the public have come to expect, Microsoft was 
unpunished. Microsoft funded two separate organizations which 
pretended to be independent organizations during its trial. These 
groups filed briefs to support the company, and attempted to rally 
public support for Microsoft. These facts were made known only after 
a suspicious person at the Oracle corporation hired a private 
investigator to rummage through the trash of those 
``independent'' consumer groups. In further disregard for 
ethics, Microsoft secretly lobbied to have the funding for the 
Department of Justice substantially lowered after the trial began. 
One can only speculate if their motive was to prevent their 
prosecution, or if it was to enact revenge on our nations core law 
enforcement agency. During the trial, Microsoft claimed that 
competition existed, while it financially rescued Corel and used 
that company as evidence that competition indeed survived in the 
``free market''. Both companies then attempted to suppress 
Corel's benefactor, as it would appear incriminating; and this was 
in itself an instance of perjury. Thereafter, Corel immediately 
discontinued work on Linux since it is a potential operating systems 
competitor for Microsoft. There have been numerous instances in 
which agents of Microsoft have written letters to various 
organizations in support of Microsoft. These letters typically 
dishonestly attack any thing considered to be a threat to Microsoft. 
The troubling aspect of this behavior is the letters are written to 
appear as spontaneous testimonials from independent sources. 
Microsoft's organized campaign of misinformation is so common that 
there is a name for it. It is called 
``astroturf''--meaning a fake grass roots movement. 
You should expect to see many astroturf letters, and I have read 
that some of the state attorney generals have already been receiving 
correspondence from people who died years ago. Recently during 
another trial, Microsoft boldly proposed our government replace 
Apple's software in the schools with donated Microsoft software, 
thereby extending its monopoly to education as a remedy to abusive 
monopoly practices. In further insult to our collective 
intelligence, the plan would require Microsoft to give its software 
to schools at its inflated market value and use that as a tax write-
off. Under Microsoft's proposed ``punishment'' for itself, 
the tax payers would be forced to pay Microsoft to create another 
monopoly for itself among children.
Time Is Running Out
    To Microsoft winning is everything, and in its twisted corporate 
mind-set it means everyone else must lose. The losers include you 
and me. Their appetite is unquenchable. The best analogy to 
Microsoft is to describe

[[Page 27735]]

it as a cancer. This company has already consumed every other 
company in the low-end (PC) software market, and is now moving to 
hijack the free and open Internet with its .Net initiative. 
Microsoft has even turned its attacks upon free software which is 
the foundation of all industry standards and the Internet. Even 
software produced by volunteers is not acceptable to Microsoft, 
since such software weakens the publics complete dependence on them. 
Microsoft is in many ways like an illegal drug dealer, because it 
does everything in its power to kill all competitors while 
stimulating a complete dependence on its own products. Microsoft is 
powerful enough to make unquestionable demands against the providers 
of Internet services, and computer hardware manufacturers. It alone 
defines the rules and twists standards for desktop computer systems 
to meet its agenda. Software companies which do not threaten 
Microsoft's agenda are allowed to live. Microsoft commonly makes its 
own software function poorly with non-Microsoft software, while 
adding operating system features to cripple the software of others. 
To make my case: the mighty IBM is afraid of Microsoft. Everyone is 
afraid. They are a menace, and they are a significant threat to our 
liberties.



MTC-00026019

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:16pm
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,
    Cher Brence
    5828 Havencrest Drive
    Klamath Falls, OR 97603



MTC-00026021

From: john e viano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is reasonable and fair to all 
concerned. I reccommend prompt action to resolve this matter as 
currently structured. John E. Viano [email protected]



MTC-00026023

From: Charles Kuske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is a bad idea. I have been programming 
since 1978 and have seen a lot of changes, and change is good. This 
settlement is business as usual, makes no changes, and is bad.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Kuske



MTC-00026024

From: Chris Jessee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    As an information technology specialist, I'm writing to express 
my concern over the inadequacy of the proposed remedies in the 
Microsoft settlement.
    Any remedy short of breaking-up Microsoft will not be adequate 
in stopping their aggressive monopolistic business practices. 
Without break-up, Microsoft will continue to destroy their 
competitors and foist poor quality products on businesses and 
consumers. An important fact that has been largely overlooked in 
this case is that Microsoft's stranglehold on the computer industry 
is national security threat. Many of our government agencies, much 
of our military and the vast majority of our business and 
educational institutions operate on and are heavily dependant on 
Microsoft software. Hardly a week goes by that we don't hear news of 
the latest computer virus or hacker breakin crippling thousands of 
servers and desktop computers by taking advantage of the security 
holes in Microsoft's poorly designed and implemented products. A 
hacker terrorist could shutdown much of the government, military and 
business community with a well-written virus that exploits the holes 
in Microsoft's sloppy code. Hacker attacks cost companies and 
taxpayers millions of dollars a year because of Microsoft's 
negligence and our dependence on them. Microsoft should be held 
criminally liable for the losses caused by their software. Just as 
Firestone and Ford are held accountable for safety failures, 
Microsoft and all other software vendors should be held accountable 
for security failures. Breaking-up Microsoft and fining them to a 
degree as to cripple them and using the revenue to fund competitors 
and ``Baby Bills'' is the only way to ensure national 
security and consumer choice. Don't allow Microsoft's lobbyists 
lining the pockets of politicians to threaten the security of our 
country.
    Thank you,
    Chris Jessee
    [email protected]
    203 Camellia Dr.
    Charlottesville, VA 22903
    804-979-7279



MTC-00026025

From: edie smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I believe America would not be in the lead of Computer 
intelligence had it not been for Microsoft. When you are a leader, 
you encounter jealousy & hate. Americans might be respected 
around the world but never loved by the world. Such is the case with 
Microsoft as was the 12 year case against IBM.
    Quit biting the hand that feeds you. I am against any breaking 
apart the Firm of Microsoft. And I am against any party receiving 
their software codes.
    I am going to start a campaign to end Porn spam, the majority 
coming from AOL member sites, which seems that this would be the 
interest of the integrity of the internet and software legalities. 
Porn sites can't think of enough ways to make money, be dishonest in 
undeliverable return email addresses, leaving the angry recipient no 
choice but to track down the headers, and source code of the web 
sites in order to put a stop to them flooding, I said flooding, 
vulgar, unrequested email to email addresses that they randomly 
solicit to. This should be against the law. So why don't you put 
your legal efforts where they protect the public interest. Or are 
many of you partners with these porn sites and receiving monies on 
affiliations. Do something about it before I have to, and then your 
legal teams will be sited & sued for not upholding the internet 
laws. (TITLE 18, CHAPTER 47). Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of 
the law. I'm tired of drawing a line for your flimsy morals. I have 
a choice to use Microsoft or any other software I want. Microsoft 
isn't infringing on my freedom, my private email address, my choice.
    Get a real job. [email protected]
    depth seeker



MTC-00026026

From: Wesley Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am writing to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement as 
specified under the Tunney Act. In short I agree with the problems 
identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html). I specifically want to emphasize 
problems with the PFJ which affect me as a programmer.
    No operating system has any use whatsoever without applications. 
Thus I am especially concerned about several aspects of the PFJ. 
First, I believe that the requirement that Microsoft publish its 
secret API's is not broad enough to require it to publish enough of 
the API's to enable third party software developers to write 
programs that compete at any level. This is a problem both for third 
party application developers, and third party operating system 
developers such as Sun, Apple or Linux who are trying to write their 
systems to enable Windows applications to run on their systems. I 
urge you to seek a broader definition of API from third party 
software developers which they feel would be sufficient to develop 
commercially viable software that could interoperate with Windows 
operating systems or applications.
    Second, I disagree with the section of the PFJ which requires 
the release of API

[[Page 27736]]

documentation but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    This goes hand in hand with my first point. A big part of a 
programmer's software development is checking the documentation of 
the API's (s)he is using to ensure that his/her own application will 
interface properly. Prohibiting the use of documentation by 
competitors is nearly equivalent to not publishing the API's. This 
prohibition neatly undoes the requirement that the API's be 
published in the first place.
    Third, I urge you to require that Microsoft release 
documentation which completely describes the format of Microsoft 
Office documents. A major concern of people who go to purchase a 
computer is whether they will be able to read documents from others. 
This means in nearly all cases being able to read Microsoft 
documents. The usual answer is ``no, this program (or this 
computer) only reads some Microsoft documents.'' In order to 
enable third party developers, especially application developers, to 
compete, they must be able show that their customers have real 
compatibility. Third party software must be able to read and write 
Microsoft documents formats, and to do this Microsoft must publish 
it's Office Document formats.
    Finally, I am pessimistic about the enforcement of the PFJ as a 
whole. I believe that Microsoft has consistently, and with full 
understanding of what they were doing, broken previously imposed 
restraints on their monopolistic practices. I urge you to develop a 
strong system of restraints on Microsoft to enforce whatever PFJ is 
finally imposed.
    Sincerely,
    Wesley P. Taylor
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026027

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This is in support of Microsoft's position re: AOL lawsuit. IA's 
success in the market has been proven to be based upon morit, not 
market share.
    Stop all the frivolous lawsuits. Let people get back to work 
developing improvements to their software instead of spending money 
on lawyers.



MTC-00026028

From: Teruel de Campo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    do NOT agree
    -=terry(Denver)=-
    [email protected]
    AIM: terryXela *** ICQ: 6387625
    Date: US: 01/26/02 / Euro: 26.01.02, Time: 10:31:05



MTC-00026029

From: Jonathan Van Doren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my opinion about microsoft-THEY ARE A 
MONOPOLY! If I had another option besides windows I would definitely 
have taken advantage of it. Their product is poor and their support 
is terrible-I have never encountered such rude and arrogant behavior 
from a ``service'' entity in my life. When I purchased my 
computer it came preloaded with windows XP, an untested and 
microsoft-slanted product that has further entrenched their 
monopolistic powers.
    The government's proposed ``settlement'' is a travesty 
of justice, and makes me wonder how much compensation the anti-trust 
division received for it's condoning of anti-competitive behavior.
    Microsoft will never change on it's own, and therefore real 
action MUST be taken-or the justice department will simply be 
another competitor that bows it's head in defeat. Get more from the 
Web. FREE MSN
    Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com



MTC-00026030

From: Richard Lambert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:30pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    As a citizen of USA, it is my firm opinion the terms of the 
settlement agreement between 9 states and DOJ are fair and good for 
the nation.
    Do no delay in instituting this agreement.
    Dick Lambert
    461 Dellbrook AVe
    San Francisco, CA 94131



MTC-00026031

From: Jim Fritz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft is Good
    Dear DOJ,
    Thank you for settling the antitrust case against Microsoft 
(MS). The 9 states which are asking for further remedies don't 
realize that MS has added incredible value to our world by making 
information technology ubiquitous at an affordable price. The case 
should be settled as is without further remedies as this is what is 
best for the consumer and the industry.
    Regards, Jim



MTC-00026032

From: r(u)hodg Hodgson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00026033

From: Sam Hummel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This sure sounds like he has more than I do and now I don't 
think it is fair. Why can't we be glad Microsoft made it so easy for 
the average person to own a computer. If it wasn't for their 
innovated ideas and boxing things all together, some of us would 
never have learned to use the internet. If anybody tries to wrap 
everything together, it is AOL. Once they install their software on 
your computer, it somehow connects itself to everything....But that 
is okay because I chose to use that program to access the web. I 
have free choice to pick and chose what is offered to me. Let me 
make that decision and not some other company that is just a spoiled 
sport.
    Sharilyn Hummel, Dover, DE



MTC-00026034

From: Walt Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From all information available, I find the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft to be sorely lacking in real hard punitive punishment 
for the practices of the past, nor has Microsoft shown any remorse 
for its prior activities. it continues to bundle software with the 
intent of pushing aside any competition it might face. The proposed 
settlement does little if anything to level the playing field for 
competitive software to be given a fair evaluation on the market 
place. Microsoft has been, and in this citizens opinion, still is in 
the business of monopolizing the Operating System and Browser 
software industry. We as citizens should be given a choice as to 
what we use, but the efforts of Microsoft prevent that from being a 
viable alternative as all new equipment manufacturers are still 
forced to load the Microsoft package of OS and Browser of face being 
shut out of Microsoft's good graces
    Walter L. Wilson
    132 Rolling Park Drive
    Lexington, NC 27295-6810



MTC-00026035

From: Dow McKeever
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement as currently proposed is unfair.
    Dow McKeever



MTC-00026036

From: Lesley D. McDowell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.
    -Lesley D. McDowell



MTC-00026037

From: JOHN N GEHL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:43pm
Subject: Sirs:
    Sirs:
    I would like to lend my support to the anti trust settlement 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft Corp. It seems to me 
that the provisions of the agreement , while tough, are reasonable, 
fair to all parties involved, and go beyond the findings of the 
Court of Appeals ruling. Hopefully, my feelings and support will be 
given considera-tion during the review and a determination made that 
the terms are indeed in the public interest.
    Thank you for allowing me to express my feelings on this matter.
    John N. Gehl
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 27737]]



MTC-00026038

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Delores Daugherty
    P.O. Box 22
    26263 Lake Forest Drive
    Twin Peaks, CA 92391



MTC-00026039

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Steve Duenkel
    1762 233rd Place N.E.
    Sammamish, WA 98074-4452



MTC-00026040

From: bob vinci
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    It is time to resolve the Microsoft suit. The settlement is fair 
in all regards. Only a need to gain the upper hand in the 
marketplace keep opponents of the settlement motivated. The best 
interests of the consumer are served by this settlement. There is no 
need to further strip away Microsoft's ability to compete. It must 
be noted that the initiation of the DOJ suit coincided with the 
``bursting of the technology bubble''. It is time for the 
DOJ to help put the economy and free trade back on track.



MTC-00026041

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:45pm
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 Daugherty
    P.O. Box 22
    26263 Lake Forest Drive
    Twin Peaks, CA 92391



MTC-00026042

From: Richard Kosvanec
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing as a concerned citizen who is both shocked and 
dismayed that a convicted monopolist seem to be getting even more 
monopoly power handed to them via the justice system.
    Microsoft continues to ignore consent decrees, release insecure 
products, bury, buy or steal from their competition (they call it a 
``strategic alliance ``) and these practices must be 
stopped.
    The biggest insult to the Justice system, Democracy and the 
American People is that Microsoft actually has a say in what their 
punishment will be. Since when do convicted felons have a say in 
their punishment?
    My opinion is this should be done:
    1) Microsoft should pay back no less than 10% of their highest 
net worth back to those that have been harmed by the leveraging 
their monopoly.
    2) Pay all of the court costs so taxpayers such as myself are 
not footing the bill.
    3) No more ``secret and exclusive contracts'' with 
OEM's. If I do not want a computer with Windows on it, I should not 
have to PAY for it anyway!
    4) All of their ``Office'' file formats should be 
opened up. This should not be an option. They can keep their 
program's source code a secret, however, any data created with those 
programs should not be subject to the whim of a monopolist. 
Microsoft seems to forget too quickly that it is my data and my 
computer, not theirs.
    5) Any and all versions of their operating systems that they 
discontinue support for should have its source code released. Just 
because they do not support it, does not mean that it is no longer 
used, and would decrease the ``upgrade treadmill'' 
Microsoft is so famous for creating.
    6) Along the same lines as #4 --and I can not emphasize 
this enough--- strict adherence to network/Internet/web 
protocols. No proprietary extensions (Microsoft's version of Java 
that was Windows only), no co-opting standards (Kerbos) and no 
drastic changes to break others products (SMB and others).
    7) Look at the suggestions submitted to slashdot.org that echo 
my sentiments and expound even more my suggestions: http://
slashdot.org/comments.pl' sid=26726&cid=0&pid=0& 
startat=&threshold=3&m 
ode=flat&commentsort=0&op=Change
    Thank you for your time.
    Richard Kosvanec
    Athens, Ga.



MTC-00026043

From: The Provident Search Group, Inc.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Please stop further litigation against Microsoft. Since they 
have agreed to a settlement which is in everyones'' interest, 
it makes no sense to harass them further. To do so will be to 
negatively affect our economy (which US Government actions have 
already done due to their involvement in this entire matter).
    Furthermore, the US Justice Department has largely been 
responsible for a dramatic decrease in our portfolio value due to 
the drop in Microsoft stock precipitated by Government actions.
    Thank you,
    Frederick & Coleen Walther
    PO Box 30
    West Poland, ME 04291



MTC-00026044

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a retired Federal Employer and Citizen of the US, I feel it 
is time that the revised Settlement be accepted and move on to more 
important issues such as in continuing to make the US a strong 
competitive force in the world economy. This delay is only 
benefiting our foreign competition. The competition is trying to tie 
the hands of an innovative company like Microsoft.
    Thank You for allowing me to express my opinion on this 
important issue.
    Lawrence R. Wydock

[[Page 27738]]



MTC-00026045

From: Faye Patrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has supported our Computer Users Group from the time 
that we started until and including NOW. We appreciate their support 
and feel that most other companies quit helping groups such as ours. 
We are ICON Users Group, located in Springfield Missouri. Microsoft 
comes to our group and demonstrates their newest software and 
generally helps our group and other groups similar to ours. I feel 
that they have made using computers much more user friendly than 
they were in the beginning. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!! QUIT THE PERSECUTION 
OF MICROSOFT!
    Sincerely,
    Faye Patrick Newsletter Editor ICON Users Group Springfield 
Missouri



MTC-00026046

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:52pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Dear Judge,
    Although I am a supporter for free markets and free competition, 
I do not agree that the Proposed Financial Judgement has been 
effective in circumventing the monopoly that Microsoft has 
established. Microsoft has clearly violated anti-trust laws and the 
PFJ has not been sufficient action taken to curb these activities.
    I would hope that more can be done in terms of overturning this 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Sarah Butler
    248 Lincoln Street Lexington, MA
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026047

From: Craig Reisinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the Microsoft settlement offer.
    I believe that this entire matter qualifies as government 
sanctioned extortion. Microsoft is a business. A business is started 
to make a product and a profit. No one was forced to choose any 
Microsoft product.
    Like many millions of other consumers I CHOSE to do 
so--REPEATEDLY. Microsoft made a profit and I have a product I 
WANTED. Is there even ONE individual who did not have a choice about 
which product they would use? NO! To argue that they couldn't figure 
out the technology and use a competing product has no merit. A 
Cessna pilot has no right to complain that he cannot fly a 767. An 
automobile driver has no right to complain that he cannot fly a 
Cessna.
    Computers are not toys. They are very complex tools that have 
become easier to use and more beneficial because companies like 
Microsoft work very hard to make that happen. Efforts like this suit 
are counter-productive, immoral, unconstitutional (in my opinion), 
and wrong!
    Craig M. Reisinger
    2500 Deer Valley Rd. #421
    San Rafael, CA 94903



MTC-00026048

From: chappell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John and Susan Chappell
20630 NE 92nd Place
Redmond, WA 98053
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The settlement reached between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft should be enacted at the earliest convenience of the 
Justice Department. Three years have now passed since the inception 
of this litigation. Since this time, enormous amounts of money have 
been spent in pursuing this litigation.
    Given the recent recession and decline in budgetary resources, 
to pursue this issue any further would be a sad waste of funds. 
Therefore, I urge you to enact the settlement reached back in 
November.
    The settlement works as a barrier against Microsoft's more 
cutthroat business practices, while maintaining the company's 
ability to deliver efficient, integrated software to consumers 
worldwide.
    The settlement agreement contains many compromises on 
Microsoft's behalf. Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against 
manufacturers that ship software that competes with Microsoft. In 
addition, Microsoft has agreed to license Windows at the same rate 
to the larger PC manufacturers. Finally, Microsoft will also 
disclose many of the protocols within the Windows system.
    In the end, the enactment of this settlement will be beneficial 
to everyone involved.
    Please enact the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    John and Susan Chappell



MTC-00026049

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the proposed Microsoft Settlement. Further 
litigation will only benefit the trial lawyers and a few greedy 
states attorneys general.
    Dale Nelsen
    Nampa, Idaho



MTC-00026050

From: Simon Beaver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12'55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to submit my comments on the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the U.S. Department Of Justice. For nearly 
twelve years now, I have worked in the computing industry. For nine 
of those years I have been a freelance consultant, and have thus 
been able to observe the activities of a wide range of companies. I 
have no affiliation either with Microsoft or any of its competitors. 
For the reasons I shall set out below, I am strongly opposed to the 
settlement in its existing form. Whenever someone is found to have 
broken the law, they are subject to sanctions. Those sanctions vary 
according to the nature of the offence, but in all cases they have 
three main components. They provide for an appropriate punishment, 
they attempt where possible to compensate those who suffered as a 
result of the offence, and they endeavour to ensure that there is no 
likelihood that the convicted person will re-offend.
    Although different weight will be given to different aspects 
depending on the nature of the offence--criminal or civil, 
major crime or petty misdemeanour, etc--some aspect of these 
three elements is always present. What makes the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft case unique, is that none of those elements are 
present.
    To take these three elements in order, let us first look at 
punishment. Clearly, there is no element of punishment whatsoever 
contained in the proposed settlement. Microsoft have been found to 
have been operating an illegal monopoly for the best part of a 
decade, making excessive profits as a result, and yet no punitive 
sanctions are being imposed. Yet it has long been a golden rule in 
the law that a criminal must not be allowed to profit from his 
crimes. Where someone is convicted of drug-dealing or fraud or gun-
running, the courts quite rightly seize their assets. If a murderer 
seeks to profit by writing a book about his crimes, the law steps in 
to ensure he cannot make money from his notoriety. Yet in this case, 
the law seems perfectly happy for Microsoft to profit from their 
illegal activity. Despite the clear fact that this money was 
obtained, at least in part, by unlawful means, no action is to be 
taken. This seems to me wholly incompatible with the basic 
principles of natural justice. Microsoft have made money illegally, 
and they should not be allowed to retain it.
    The proposed settlement is equally silent on the subject of 
compensation of victims. Now clearly in this case, the facts make it 
hard to ascertain exactly the extent of the loss suffered by any 
given party. Yet it is clear that there have been victims of the 
Microsoft monopoly. Companies like Digital Research and Netscape 
have been demonstrated to have suffered directly as a result of 
Microsoft's actions. Yet the proposed settlement is completely 
silent with regards to any form of redress.
    On the face of it, the settlement seems primarily directed at 
the third element described, that of preventing the possibility of 
re-offending. Yet even here, despite that focus, the settlement is 
sadly lacking. Indeed, far from demolishing Microsoft's illegal 
monopoly, it seems rather to entrench it in place. Furthermore, the 
vagueness of the language makes it almost certain that confusion and 
further litigation will arise. I have a law degree myself, and I can 
recognise potentially litigious drafting when I see it. The proposed 
settlement is riddled with such language.
    To take just one example, section III C 2 states that Microsoft 
shall not restrict an OEM from : ``Distributing or promoting 
Non-Microsoft Middleware by installing and displaying on the desktop 
shortcuts of any size or shape so long as such shortcuts do not 
impair the functionality of the user interface.''

[[Page 27739]]

    How does the court propose to define impairment of functionality 
? Does replacing Microsoft functionality with equivalent non-
Microsoft functionality count ? Does changing the look and feel of 
the desktop constitute impairment ? Would modifying permission 
levels or unhiding hidden files or directories count ? This kind of 
language permeates the proposed settlement, and is wide open to 
abuse and distortion. Furthermore, no part of the settlement 
actually addresses the problem of how to dismantle the Microsoft 
monopoly. The proposed settlement might be fine had it been enacted 
ten years ago, before Microsoft's monopoly had been established. Yet 
the monopoly is here, it is well-established, and different remedies 
are required, ones which actually encourage competition and actively 
seek to break up the existing distorted marketplace.
    It seems to me that there are two key elements to this.. The 
first is to ensure that competing companies cannot be shut out of 
the marketplace, and the second is to ensure that consumers are able 
easily to migrate between Microsoft and non-Microsoft products as 
easily as possible. The proposed settlement goes some way towards 
this with its sections on OEM licensing, but this on its own is by 
no means enough.
    To take a prime example, one of the major ways in which 
Microsoft locks in customers and excludes competitors is through the 
use of proprietary file formats. The .doc files of Microsoft Word, 
the .xls files of Microsoft Excel, and so on. Although there are 
some competing products which do a reasonable job of handling these 
formats, none are able to do so perfectly. A consumer, especially a 
large business, which has a large body of information stored in 
files of this type is therefore deterred from moving to a rival by 
the costs involved in converting from one format to another.
    If the proposed settlement required Microsoft to disclose the 
specification for these file formats, in addition to the disclosure 
requirements contained in the existing proposals, then companies 
would be able to produce products which handled these files 
correctly, and consumers would be able to switch between Microsoft 
and non-Microsoft products at will, and could mix and match as it 
suited them. Possibly they might retain the Microsoft product to 
handle spreadsheets, but use a competing company's word processor. 
The important thing is that consumers would have a genuine choice, 
since all products would be able to handle their data.
    Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the current proposed 
settlement is the large number of exemptions it provides for 
Microsoft. Microsoft gets a number of exemptions from the proposed 
provisions on grounds of security, anti-piracy, remote 
administration and various other headings. Taken together, they 
provide the means for Microsoft to exempt practically everything it 
does from the provisions of the proposed settlement. It is surely no 
coincidence that Bill Gates has started making speeches about how 
security comes first, and how security will be built into everything 
the company does from now on. If security is an integral part of 
everything Microsoft does, then everything Microsoft does can be 
exempted from the terms of the settlement.
    Whilst it is clear that the motive behind these exemptions is a 
noble one, in practice they are so wide as to render the settlement 
worthless. In my opinion, Microsoft has forfeited the right to this 
kind of consideration by dint of its long history of unlawful 
activity. The most important thing now must surely be to ensure that 
competition is introduced into the marketplace, and that Microsoft 
has no way to continue its illegal monopoly.
    In a related matter, it seems clear to me that the access 
provisions specified by the proposed settlement need to be radically 
expanded. In particular, the definitions need to be adjusted to 
include those companies and individuals producing products for non-
Microsoft operating systems which might need to interact with 
Microsoft products. Provision III J 2 which allows Microsoft to 
determine the authenticity and viability of a business, is 
particularly dangerous in this respect.
    Microsoft's hostility to open source and free software 
developers is well known. One Microsoft executive even went so far 
as to describe them as un-American. By allowing Microsoft to exclude 
developers simply because they operate on a different business 
model, the settlement does much to restrict one of the most vibrant 
and expanding areas of computing, and guarantees that a large number 
of legitimate users and developers are excluded from benefitting 
from the settlement provisions.
    In summary, then, let me say this. I have neither the time nor 
the expertise to fully draft a proposed settlement of my own, but it 
seems to me that there are certain key elements that are essential 
if the proposed settlement is to effectively dismantle the Microsoft 
monopoly and introduce genuine competition.
    1. Tighter drafting, with far fewer loopholes and potentially 
litigious language.
    2. Actively seeking to promote competition and encourage 
consumers to exercise choice.
    3. Reducing the costs inherent in converting between Microsoft 
and non-Microsoft products.
    4. Removing the exemptions which would allow Microsoft to 
preserve its monopoly.
    5. Ensuring that all business, whatever their nature, have 
access to the information they require to compete effectively.
    There is one final matter which I would like to touch on. In the 
discussions that have occurred since the proposed settlement was 
published, a new word has been invented. That word is 
``Seattlement''. As is doubtless obvious, it has arisen 
because the proposed settlement is seen as having been drafted by 
Microsoft for their own benefit, without any regard to the actual 
merits of the case. If the court imposes this settlement unmodified, 
it will be seen around the world as having capitulated utterly to 
Microsoft, and to have failed completely to regulate its behaviour 
or dismantle its monopoly. The Department of Justice will be seen as 
either completely ignorant of the realities of the case, or more 
likely as having been bought and paid for by Microsoft and its 
lobbyists.
    The law is the law, and if it is to mean anything, it must apply 
equally to everyone. Justice must be done, and must be seen to be 
done. Rich and poor, large or small, all need to have equal 
protection under the law, or the law becomes meaningless. If this 
settlement is approved un-amended, it will send the signal that 
justice in the United States is a commodity. The more you can 
afford, the more you get. No money, no justice. Surely this is not 
the message that the court wishes to send to the American public, 
the American business community, or the world. So in conclusion, it 
is my belief that this settlement is fundamentally flawed and needs 
almost complete re-drafting. Not only does it do nothing to damage 
Microsoft's unlawful monopoly, it actively enshrines that monopoly 
in law. It doesn't serve the consumer, it doesn't serve the software 
industry, and it doesn't serve justice; it benefits only Microsoft. 
For the first time, the law will create a situation in which the 
criminal is not only allowed to benefit from his crime, but to keep 
on benefitting from it with the full protection of the courts.
    Simon Beaver
    Managing Director,
    Sternmetal Horizons Ltd.



MTC-00026051

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 26, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I think it is a shame that the settlement in the Microsoft case 
was not reached years ago. If the suit had to be brought at all. 
Microsoft is a successful company, which has led the world into a 
new era, improved the balance of trade, improved efficiency, and 
increased the ease with which ordinary people use technology. There 
have always been choices for people who prefer to use non-Microsoft 
products. Apple has made its own products-both hardware and 
software-for anyone who wants to get locked into that single, 
closely guarded system. Or someone could have tried to use a Unix 
system at home. But people wanted to use Windows. Microsoft has 
always been honest and conservative in its financial dealings. Why 
should we tear Microsoft apart, when it has been so beneficial?
    To bring a close to this very distracting and expensive suit, 
Microsoft has compromised a great deal of its rights. Internal 
interfaces and server protocols of Windows will be divulged 
publicly. Exclusive marketing agreements will be allowed to lapse. 
The Windows desktop will be made fully re-configurable by non-
Microsoft companies. Software experts in a technical committee will 
observe Microsoft's conduct, software and practices with an eagle-
eye. This is heavy stuff. Microsoft has not gotten off lightly at 
all. Only by returning its focus back to accelerated innovation, as 
directed by its founder, Bill Gates, can Microsoft continue to 
survive and lead as it has done so well in the past.

[[Page 27740]]

    The best interests of the American computer sector and the 
American economy as a whole will be served by the Federal Court's 
approval of the settlement. Please support this settlement, Mr. 
Attorney General.
    Sincerely,
    Betty Harrell
    8215 S.W. 82 Place
    Miami, Florida 33143
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026052

From: Jurrinus ten Brinke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The question is will we be better off?
    I am an avid Microsoft developer for many years. There is a 
reason for choosing Microsoft and that is they are the best game in 
town and always have been. They make it possible for me to develop 
products for my clients that make their computers usable. Their 
products put us in the lead. If I had to develop the same products 
using Sun the cost to my client's would be much higher.
    This battle between Microsoft, Netscape, Sun, Oracle is nothing 
but a bunch of overgrown kids wanting to be the best. You cannot 
tell me that this antitrust will be over once we punish Microsoft. 
Downgrading Microsoft at this time will create a vacuum were these 
other companies can move into. That's what they want. They can't do 
it in the market place so they are letting the government do their 
work for them. Don't put your antitrust arguments away cause you 
will need them again. The end result will be a software industry in 
ruins. Want examples just look at the airline industry and the 
telephone industry and tell me we have done well. Have they made it 
easier for me to fly and make phone calls. What a mess.
    Lets stop this now cause your wasting my tax dollars and lets 
move on. As long as Microsoft returns their profits back into our 
society through better products and charity, keep their prices and 
license cost within reason then let it be.
    Jerry



MTC-00026053

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop trying to destroy Microsoft. It is good that here is a 
standard type system so programs are compatible.



MTC-00026054

From: GEORGE D FRENCH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:02pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Enough is enough. The trial has cost the public enough of our 
taxes. To further spend taxes because some companies have not been 
smart enough to compete is to further their lack of competition in a 
highly competitive field. I feel that the states are suing only to 
try to get some of Microsofts funds, not because the states have 
been harmed.
    Thank you. George French.



MTC-00026055

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear D. O. J. Representative:
    I find it maddening that in this time of recession and war, the 
United States Justice Department has nothing better to do then to 
waste our money on pursuing a frivolous law suit that was brought on 
by politics and soft money! How foolish we must look to the rest of 
the world!
    Nick Kozimor
    Mansfield, Ohio



MTC-00026056

From: Lynn and Nancy Trowbridge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir: Attached please find a letter in relating to a case 
currently under review in your office. I appreciate your careful 
consideration of my opinion regarding this case. The letter is in 
Microsoft Office97 Word format.
    Very truly yours,
    Lynn M. Trowbridge, Ph.D.
    1211 Ames Hill Road
    Brattleboro, Vermont 05301-4254
    January 26, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to address the recent decision reached by Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice. As everyone is aware, the Department 
of Justice brought an antitrust suit against the company. I am now 
retired, but my professional life was spent as a software 
programmer/manager contracting services to the Federal government in 
Washington, DC I am well aware of the quality of computer products 
and believe my comments to be relevant.
    Microsoft produces the best commercially available operating 
system in the country. There are other companies that offer, in my 
opinion, better software products in other categories, and I am free 
to use them as I see fit. Microsoft, while it dominates part of the 
market, dominates that part because it produces a number of 
excellent products. It does not dominate the entire software market. 
To punish a company because they make quality products is uncalled 
for and unwise. Microsoft has contributed mightily to this country's 
understanding of computers, making them accessible to the average 
layperson, and, in return, the company has profited. This is 
entirely in keeping with the American free-market system.
    I am happy to see that Microsoft will not be broken up under 
terms of the settlement. In my opinion, however, Microsoft is being 
suitably punished for alleged unfair practices. The company is 
disclosing internal interfaces and protocols to competitors, 
agreeing not to retaliate against software developers who develop or 
promote software that competes with Windows, and forming a three-
person team to monitor compliance with the settlement.
    Although the court decisions are perhaps flawed and the 
punishments may not be fully justified, immediate settlement of 
these suits is definitely in the best interests of the public. I 
take a strong stand against further litigation and hope the 
government will bring the recently reached settlement to fruition 
and move on to the solution of other more important national 
problems.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Lynn M. Trowbridge, Ph.D.



MTC-00026057

From: Demetrious(u)Harrington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:04pm
Subject: Anti Trust Case
    Hello,
    I do believe that the proposed settlement is nothing but a slap 
on the rists to Microsoft. There is nothing that really limits the 
stregth of the monopoly. The charges that brought Microsoft to court 
will not be resolved at all I believe.
    demetri



MTC-00026058

From: jan smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the settlement agreement made between DoJ, 9 States 
and Microsoft. Please settle it and get on with life.
    Thanks for considering my opinion.
    [email protected]



MTC-00026059

From: Ray Petrone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft and Ladies and Gentlemen:
    Let me start by quoting verbatim from Section 3. of the 
Complaint against Microsoft as posted: ``There are high 
barriers to entry in the market for PC operating systems. One of the 
most important barriers to entry is the barrier created by the 
number of software applications that must run on an operating system 
in order to make the operating system attractive to end users. 
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, a potential new operating system 
entrant faces a high barrier to successful entry.''
    Yes, there are high barriers to entry in the market for PC 
operating systems just as there are barriers in the auto 
manufacturing industry and others. Yes, I understand that there are 
several major competitors there but General Motors was the dominant 
player until GM's lack of vigilance and natural free market forces 
changed that situation over the last one or two decades.
    Oracle has enjoyed a somewhat different but similar position in 
the market for corporate databases. The issue of applications was 
similar but the advancement of middleware and market

[[Page 27741]]

demand for an abstraction layer for access has leveled that playing 
field. UNIX and its variants were supposedly going to be the only 
viable operating system of the future. Linux still thinks it is 
viable and even superior but the public by and large doesn't seem to 
agree despite the protestations by Linux authors and advocates 
claiming plenty of applications. Finally, many feel that AOL 
(including the Netscape merger entity) may have a similar market 
position which may be the ultimate irony since their Netscape 
subunit was a prime influence in this suit being brought against 
Microsoft. I have heard AOL customers say they feel trapped by 
simple things like their email address on AOL known to their 
friends. Recall that AOL doesn't providing a forwarding service like 
phone companies and the US Mail Service (shouldn't they by law?).
    I feel you give far too little credit to natural market forces 
in your evaluation of evidence and make far too much of what little 
evidence I have seen or read. Have you no faith in our free market 
society as prescribed by law? And you give far too much credit to a 
few snippets of emails out of tens of millions of words calling them 
a pattern of abuse and misconduct. Have you considered that it is 
our free market system that has created the giant software company 
known as Microsoft through natural selection of the vast majority of 
commercial and home customers? It is yet another irony that the DOJ 
was able to create a successful case in part because it uses 
Microsoft products that enhance productivity and collaboration. And 
is it not evident that application developers prefer to write 
applications to a single platform or interface. Indeed, there are 
still many companies fairing quite well by writing non-portable 
applications to COBOL on IBM's former MVS platform. Please recall 
the near revolt in the 70s when IBM switched its commercial 
customers (were no home customers then because there was no 
Microsoft DOS or Windows) from IBM DOS to MVS as the new Mainframe 
standard? Some customers switched to competing vendors. Some swore 
to get revenge no matter how long it took while others made the move 
kicking and fighting because of the mountain of work needed to port 
applications and JCL.
    Moving on to Section 5. of the Complaint--verbatim text is 
here for reference: ``5. To protect its valuable Windows 
monopoly against such potential competitive threats, and to extend 
its operating system monopoly into other software markets, Microsoft 
has engaged in a series of anticompetitive activities. Microsoft's 
conduct includes agreements tying other Microsoft software products 
to Microsoft's Windows operating system; exclusionary agreements 
precluding companies from distributing, promoting, buying, or using 
products of Microsoft's software competitors or potential 
competitors; and exclusionary agreements restricting the right of 
companies to provide services or resources to Microsoft's software 
competitors or potential competitors.''
    Your case for tying seems weak at best, I think the Appeals 
Court said that before me. There were times when Microsoft had to 
work hard to disengage agreements involving ``BUNDLING ``, 
at the OEM's request, (not tying) Windows and Office. Competitors 
like Compaq and HP cried foul and I have seen the email and such 
complaints personally. I fail to see where you proved the rest of 
the allegations in this section but let's assume that you did since 
the courts would seem to agree and that is the way our system works. 
Let's set aside the lower court Judge's misconduct as well.
    Moving on to Section 10. of the complaint and I quote again 
verbatim: ``10. To respond to the competitive threat posed by 
Netscape's browser, Microsoft embarked on an extensive campaign to 
market and distribute Microsoft's own Internet browser, which it 
named ``Internet Explorer'' or ``IE.'' Microsoft 
executives have described this campaign as a ``jihad'' to 
win the ``browser war.''
    Yes, they did, didn't they. I heard it personally. And John 
Young at HP and Larry Ellison at Oracle and Scott McNealy at 
SunMicrosystems Steve Jobs of Apple and countless others have used 
equally eyebrow-raising ``battle cries'' that incorporate 
words such as ``crush, kill, demolish, life-and-death 
struggle'' and so on. Perhaps it isn't in good taste, 
particularly after events of this past year. That could be debated 
endlessly. This is done so routinely at American Corporate Sales 
Meetings that it makes this citation almost laughable. Such 
invocations are meant to be motivational and that is obvious to even 
the most casual observer. Occasionally, some poor soul might take to 
levels only expected from a cult member. Microsoft's employee 
handbook specifically warns employees not to engage in unethical or 
illegal acts when competing with termination as the consequence.
    The difference between corporate euphemisms like these and 
statements by governments is this. When governments speak of killing 
that is precisely what they mean. If you wish to represent the 
American people fairly then please refrain from such citations in 
the future. I believe the DOJ should tone down the rhetoric and make 
better use of its time and our money. One could dissect each section 
of the complaint, findings and judgment of the Appeals Court but 
then that individual would be guilty of over-pursuing this matter in 
the same way that has been done by the DOJ in my humble opinion. 
Ladies and gentlemen, the ``foul'' that has alleged just 
isn't felt by the majority of the public, or if it were, individuals 
would rush in droves to Linux and its followers who claim 
application compatibility without any significant reservation.
    I cannot finish without commenting on one section of the 
Competitive Impact Statement (from the Overview of Relief) 
.-.-. (Microsoft) .-.-. 1) undertook a 
variety of restrictions on personal computer Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (``OEMs''); (2) integrated its Web browser 
into Windows in a non-removable way while excluding rivals; (3) 
engaged in restrictive and exclusionary dealings with Internet 
Access Providers, Independent Software Vendors and Apple Computer; 
and (4) attempted to mislead and threaten software developers in 
order to contain and subvert Java middleware technologies that 
threatened Microsoft's operating system monopoly. Here is a point-
by-point response:
    1) Maybe. So far, this is a so-what since Contracts are 
restrictive by definition from my recollection of Business Law.
    2) Integrated its browser in non-removable way? Similar to the 
radio in my car? No. It's easier to add a browser than a new radio 
and much cheaper as in ``free'' thanks to free enterprise, 
Microsoft and the former Netscape now part of AOL.
    3) In the matter of Microsoft's dealings with Apple, let the 
record reflect how Microsoft kept Apple financially viable with 
loans ($350M?) and the last version of Microsoft Office for the Mac.
    The latter charitable act made, at best, only modest economic 
sense for Microsoft from what I can.
    4) Our IRS in very simple matters involving small sums probably 
routinely usurps its power far more than the instances I have seen 
the DOJ cite. As for subverting Java middleware, you give too much 
credit to Microsoft and too little to SunMicrosystems from what I 
hear from dozens of developers I know. At long last in conclusion, I 
urge you to take the settlement as it stands and move on. Yes, it 
would have been nice to have another billion in software, services 
and so on for our poorest schools but we've lost that chance, 
haven't we. We will have to count on the oft-demonstrated 
philanthropy of Mr. Gates and Microsoft employees and Alumni to make 
up for that loss and, to an extent, they will although the 
concentrated consulting assistance will be hard to replace with a 
volunteer effort. (Are there plans to investigate the illegality of 
all corporate donations to schools where a smaller competitor is a 
vendor?) Again, please just move on and count this one in the win 
column at your press conference.
    Sincerely,
    Raymond Petrone, P.E.
    Concerned Citizen
    Diligent Taxpayer
    Honorably Discharged Member of the Armed Forces
    Vietnam-era Veteran
    Donator of Time to Georgia's Universities (partly from the 
knowledge gained at Microsoft)
    Former Microsoft Employee



MTC-00026060

From: BIlly J. Fite
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement,
    To who it may concern,
    The suite, against Microsoft should not have happened,at all.
    The suite was not in the best interest,of the general public, 
and the government, businesses, of all kinds, earthier.
    It is not Microsofts fault, that they are way ahead of there 
competitors,and get there product on the market, before the others 
do.
    If it had not been for all of the smart people,at Microsoft, in 
getting there technology,in the soft wear world, where would we all 
be today,with our computers etc., if we had to wait on the other 
soft wear people, to get the products on the market to us?We would 
be years behind,in getting this soft wear, for our computers.
    The suite, against Microsoft was just a way for a lot of people 
to get there hands on

[[Page 27742]]

money,that they DID NOT EARN,because they were so far behind in 
there planning and thinking, that they could not keep up, with the 
smarter people, that Microsoft had the smart to hire, that was 
superior people in laying out the programs, for Microsoft.
    So get off of your DUFFS, and throw out this OUTRAGEOUS SUITE, 
for it has cost everyone a price,in some way, and it is stupid.
    I do not think, that you should punish anyone, for there 
progress, just because the others, are not SMART ENOUGH to keep up. 
The faster that we can get, the kind of products,that Microsoft 
brings to the market place, the more it helps all of us, to advance, 
faster in the growth of our businesses, so we can get our products 
to the market place faster and cheaper, and that saves us all money, 
and can have a larger turn over, and maybe put more people to 
work,which puts more money in the hands of more people to have more 
buying power, for there families,and that is what keeps our economy 
turning, at a safer, and easier pace.
    For the betterment of our Country, and all the people,Throw the 
thing out, and DROP All Charges,and get back to Business, for this 
thing has not only cost Microsoft a lot of money,but also all of the 
people, that use and need there kind of products,and will just drive 
the price of the products up, to the people because of the cost, of 
all of the special interest people,trying to make a fast buck,off of 
some one elses progress,because it is just like all of the BULL,that 
was brought on the Tobacco Industry,and has cost us all dearly, in 
higher prices and TAXES and the money made on that deal, never ends 
up in the hands of the hospitals, etc., to treat sickness so called 
cause of some of the peoples sicknesses.
    What kind of Bull are we going to come up with NEXT,that will 
cost the people, while it makes all of the Lawyers and others RICH. 
So DROP It.
    Sincerely,
    Billy J. Fite



MTC-00026061

From: Lee Murdoch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:05pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am very much in favor of completing the Microsoft settlement. 
I am an Apple computer user and Apple has been injured in the 
past--but that has been settled and both have moved on. Sun, 
Oracle, and AOL need to move on--create some value for their 
customers. Poor AOL with 30 million subscribers!
    Meanwhile Microsoft continues to bring useful affordable 
software to market despite all of the sideshow.
    Our economy is struggling, we have apparent outlaws running an 
energy company in Texas and and an auditing profession in serious 
need of repair and reform. Seems like the Microsoft situation pales 
in comparison. They make good products, they take care of their 
employees and sponsor philanthropic endeavors around the world. 
Maybe just not enough in Washington DC!
    Seems like the DOJ needs to re-focus--and perhaps help the 
courts to do the same.
    Lee Murdoch
    205 Mariposa
    Medford, OR 97504
    CC:Diana Murdoch



MTC-00026062

From: Tomlinson David C4C CS14
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00026063

From: Gordon Haverland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I suspect you are getting a lot of feedback from non-US 
citizens, as this proposed settlement does effect people outside the 
United States. I am a Canadian.
    I've read a lot about various peoples opinions of the proposed 
settlement, both learned and popular. I tend to agree that the 
proposed settlement will be ineffective. I can also see the point 
where structural remedies may not work either.
    I believe that Microsoft has amply demonstrated over the years, 
that it is never happy having a partial share of any market. It has 
run roughshod over numerous businesses and industries, all in a 
quest to ``own'' the market. At present it has 90+% of the 
PC operating system market and probably 90+% of the ``office 
suite'' market. It has a major portion of the business 
networking market (services offered by NT to business LANs). It has 
entered the information market by forming a partnership with NBC, 
the Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) market, the home consumer game 
market. It seeks to enter the music market and the Internet services 
(.NET) market. And those are just the markets that come to my mind, 
there may be more. Even with``just'' those markets, if 
Microsoft follows past practice and grows to effectively 
``own'' all of those markets; are there any governments 
strong enough to control their actions any more? I don't think so. I 
think the effort has to be made here and now to effectively rein in 
this behavior of Microsoft.
    I think there are two things that need to be done. Microsoft has 
made a LOT of money by bullying companies. Someone has proposed 
numbers, but I think if we said something on the order of $100 
billion (10-11) US dollars, we would be close. I think Microsoft 
should be fined that much money; to demonstrate to all that it 
should not be allowed to keep the proceeds acquired by abusing a 
fair market. Also, I think a definite limit should be placed on 
Microsoft (and others) as to just how large a market share they are 
allowed to acquire in a market which has (or had) competitors. Being 
an engineer/scientist at heart, I'll pick exp(-1) (approximately 37 
percent) as a limiting fraction, but I can even see arguments for 
allowing more than 50%, where I would suggest exp(-0.5) 
(approximately 61%) as an appropriate limit.
    Thank you for your time.
    Gordon Haverland, B.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng.



MTC-00026064

From: Cam Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:08pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Deadline Looms for Public Comment
    Next Monday, January 28, 2002 is the deadline for submitting my 
opinion to the Department of Justice on the antitrust settlement 
between Microsoft, the DoJ, and nine states.
    While the terms of the settlement are tough, Microsoft and I 
believe they are reasonable and fair to all parties, and meet ? or 
go beyond--the ruling by the Court of Appeals, and represent 
the best opportunity for Microsoft, the country and the industry to 
move forward.
    Even though the DoJ, 9 states, and Microsoft have agreed on the 
terms of the settlement, I realize final adoption is not guaranteed. 
Many of Microsoft's competitors, as well as some of the Attorneys 
General who did not join the settlement, oppose the agreement and 
have worked during this period to generate public comment urging 
that it be rejected.
    I urge that the DoJ approve the settlement and this matter be 
put behind us. Thank you for your consideration.
    Cam Taylor, 6577 Upper Lake Circle, Westerville, OH 
43082-8126.
    [email protected]



MTC-00026065

From: RICK MARCINIAK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Let's get on in life. Settle the damn thing. No company has done 
more for America the past 10 years. The vote was 41 states for and 9 
against. That speaks for itself. There is never a deal that all 
sides agree on.
    I'M FOR MICROSOFT !



MTC-00026066

From: Robert Winterhalter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a member of the IT industry, I can only say that I am 
concerned with the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust 
case. It disturbs me greatly because it doesn't seem like it does 
anything to either a) actually curb Microsoft of their illegal 
activities, or b) make any effort to correct what their abuse of 
monopoly power has done to the computing industry. In fact, the 
proposed settlement seems more like an affirmation that their abuse 
of monopoly power is okay. What disturbed me most during the whole 
trial was Microsoft's unwavering assertion that they never did 
anything wrong. Further, the proposed settlement seems like it would 
only aid Microsoft in its continued abuse of monopoly power.
    Thank you for taking this into consideration.
    Robert Winterhalter
    Microcomputer Support Specialist II
    Eastern Michigan University



MTC-00026067

From: Lawrence Day

[[Page 27743]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: United States Department of Justice
From: Lawrence Day, 1539 W. George St. Chicago, IL 60657
    As a concerned citizen, I strongly recommend everyone involved 
in the Microsoft case, to put an end to the lawsuit by accepting the 
proposed settlement. It will do so much for all communities, 
especially those who need it most. I do not understand why these 
nine states, where other main software companies are located, 
continue their pursuit of Microsoft. The longer this goes on, the 
longer it will take to help the children the settlement is suppose 
to help. It will also save American tax dollars.
    Litigation is expensive!
    Microsoft has done a lot for me personally. It has given me the 
ability to spend more time with my family by making it easier and 
faster to do the paperwork required at my job. It used to be so 
burdensome. Now by using Microsoft Office, I can automate some of 
it. I can't understand how myself and other consumers have been hurt 
by this company.
    Please relay this information to the Judge and any other parties 
that can help.
    Thank you very much.
    Sincerely,
    Lawrence Day



MTC-00026068

From: Betty H meng
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's get the real meaning in ALL anti-Trust cases--The 
market place is where these companies must and should 
compete--NOT IN THE COURTS-- Microsoft wins with 
consumers--making a farce out of these anti-competitive 
lawsuits !!!!!!!! the Wall Street Journal said the biggest asset AOL 
has is what AOL hopes to get from suing Microsoft--I hope our 
legal system will throw this case and any others OUT and bring 
status back to our legal system.
    Thank you--Brig Gen William J Meng,
    (USAF Ret)



MTC-00026069

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I totally disagreed with the Government's unnecessary and 
unwarranted prosecution of Microsoft in this case. Microsoft was 
just being competitive and the other companies couldn't compete and 
were sore losers. It is a perfect example of the Government run 
amok.
    However, since Microsoft and the Government have agreed to 
settle, it is probably the best possible deal for all concerned. 
Further litigation would only prove to be counterproductive and will 
only drag the issue out for innumerable years to come. Therefore, I 
support the settlement, not because it is the right thing for 
Microsoft to do, but it will get this absolutely silly prosecution 
behind them.
    Anthony Addonizio
    [email protected]



MTC-00026070

From: TL
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov.''
Date: 1/26/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    Microsoft has owned up to its end of the bargain and shown in 
good faith to come to an acceptable bargain. I think what bothers me 
most is the fact that our great nation was built on the prospect of 
business and the freedom to conduct that business in a free nation. 
We've come a long way in industry from seeking mere quantities to 
focused quality. Microsoft products are used in just about every 
aspect of business and government today. It's not because it's the 
only game in town, but rather the quality it offers to customers. 
Would be fair to say that any corporation in competition with each 
other are obligated to have its competitors products included? The 
consumer has choices, choices built on the principles of freedom. 
The settlement is fair and for all parties involved.



MTC-00026071

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    David Dace
    72 Sobrante Rd
    Belton, TX 76513-6566



MTC-00026072

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:13pm
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,
    David Moseley
    667 Sunrise Dr.
    Phillipsburg, KS 67661



MTC-00026073

From: Dan Mayer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    `While the terms of the settlement are tough, they are 
reasonable and fair to all parties, and meet -or go beyond--the 
ruling by the Court of Appeals, and represent the best opportunity 
for Microsoft and the industry to move forward.'
    Thank you!
    Dan Mayer



MTC-00026074

From: Jennifer Bergens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:17pm
Subject: Dear Sir or Madam,
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I wish to express my disapproval of the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Jennifer Oquist



MTC-00026075

From: Ruth Swern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1'18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
856 KILMER LANE
NORTH WOODMERE, NEW YORK 1158 1
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear My. Ashcroft:
    I think the recent antitrust settlement between the US 
Department of Justice and Microsoft is fair and just. I also think 
it is in the best interest of the states, the IT sector, and the 
economy to have this issue settled and allow the government to focus 
on more important issues such as education and security.
    Under he terms of the settlement them are a couple points I 
strongly agree with. One forming a three-person team to monitor 
compliance with the settlement, and two, disclosing internal 
interfaces to competitors of Microsoft; these the aspects of the 
settlement will punish Microsoft sufficiently and ensure that 
competition is increased in the marketplace.
    I sincerely hope that opposition subdues quickly because I look 
forward to seeing new products and service from Microsoft, a company 
that has led the technology industry and grown at rapid mtc over the 
last decade. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 27744]]



MTC-00026076

From: Andrew Morrisey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very concerned that this settlement has gone on for nearly 
four years and may still be at risk of not being resolved in a 
timely manner.
    I have been involved in the Information Technology industry 
since 1981 and have seen significant advances and innovations over 
the years from all major vendors such as SUN, Oracle and Microsoft. 
I have also seen technology help advance large enterprises, 
governments, health and industries in such fashion to enable them to 
increase productivity, decrease operating expenses, increase partner 
interactions and improve corporate America. More importantly 
Information Technology has made a very positive impact on the 
economy in North America and abroad.
    However; this legal case has severely impacted many businesses 
and people around the world by diverting our attention to brace for 
major un-necessary changes to one of the key players in the industry 
(Microsoft). This case needs to be resolved quickly and fairly so we 
can ``Get on with business'' and begin to focus our 
attentions on stimulating the economy back to normal in a very 
different America.
    I have read the latest settlement and I believe it is fair and 
reasonable to all parties involved and I am looking forward to a 
final settlement in a timely manner.
    Andrew Morrisey, I.S.P.
    Vice President, Atlantic Region
    Qunara Inc. (formerly The EXOCOM Group Inc.) & Microsoft 
Developer Network (MSDN) Regional Director, Atlantic Canada
    * Voice: 902-491-4480 * Fax: 
902-422-8901
    www.Qunara.com --> e-Business solutions with high iQ
    The best enterprise e-business solutions are those born of 
intelligence.
    They intuitively understand-and deliver on-the diverse needs of 
the systems, culture and business vision they must integrate with 
and perform for. Qunara delivers solutions with the highest IQ. We 
have the proven capability and experience to consistently execute on 
our clients'' e-business vision.



MTC-00026077

From: Ric Denton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    --A consumer view
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    The following are my own personal views as a regular user of 
Microsoft application software (Microsoft Outlook, Word, PowerPoint, 
Excel). The details provided below lead me to make the plea that 
Microsoft should not be able to use its Operating System Monopoly to 
freeze out competing application software packages. This means that 
any settlement needs adequate legal enforcement teeth to ensure the 
viability of competing application software packages. To accomplish 
this, there likely needs to be a true ``wall'' between the 
Operating System group and the Microsoft applications groups, or 
even a company breakup to ensure needed competition in applications 
software.
    My view is based on some very simple and obvious considerations. 
Specifically, I am constantly dismayed at the poor quality of key 
features in Word, PowerPoint, and Excel. Their drawing packages in 
these applications are definitely not WYSIWYG (What you see is what 
you get.) This leads to countless wasted hours to do draw and paste, 
and redraw and repaste, to arrive at acceptable results. The 
documentation (Help functions) on these packages is also deplorable. 
If Microsoft chooses to publish such deficient software, that is of 
course their choice, but it dismays me that viable alternatives are 
not available. In the real world no application software developer 
is able to fairly compete with the Microsoft juggernaut, given the 
operating system monopoly that Microsoft enjoys.
    It is my opinion, based on both the above reality and on my 
following of the news, that Microsoft will continue to exploit its 
operating system monopoly as it launches into new applications 
areas. I gather that these problems fall under the category of 
``bolting'' of operating system/application software.
    I have also read that there are related issues in Microsoft's 
use of hidden controls in their middleware. Further, I have read 
that Microsoft has communication protocols embedded in their 
operating software or middleware that would freeze out competition. 
I do not have the expertise to evaluate this, but these are the kind 
of practices that would give Microsoft an unfair competitive 
advantage.
    Any application software developer would need the same access to 
operating software, at the same time, as Microsoft-internal 
developers if there is to be a level playing field. It strikes me 
that this is the minimum requirement that should be expected.
    Thank you for the opportunity to express my views as part of 
your deliberation process.
    Sincerely,
    Richard V. Denton [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026078

From: David Turover
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1'19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To all whom it may concern,
    I wish to express my displeasure with the weakness of the 
proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case.
    I am a 22 year old student majoring in Computer Information 
Science at junior college. I have been a computer user since the age 
of 6, and have been aware of the computer industry since 1995. I 
have used Microsoft products and consider them generally well 
developed, and I have also used alternatives to Microsoft's products 
including BeOS and Linux. I currently use a variant of the 
University of California's BSD Unix operating system and maintain my 
parents'' Windows 98 based computers. I have had no employment 
by nor relations with Microsoft or its competitors other than having 
been a user of their products.
    Microsoft has committed certain crimes for which Microsoft 
should be punished. These crimes have harmed competitors of 
Microsoft, and consumers have been harmed by the lack of innovation 
due to the unnatural downfall of Microsoft's competitors. Although 
some or many of Microsoft's competitors would have failed in the 
free market without any illegal actions needing to be be taken by 
Microsoft, the eventual natural failure of any of these companies 
should not relieve Microsoft of punishment for using illegal methods 
to hasten their downfall.
    Microsoft has a long history of using illegal, immoral, and 
disreputable acts to deprive its competitors of the right to compete 
in a free market. When the government has attempted to enforce its 
laws by binding Microsoft to agreements to not break the law in 
certain ways that Microsoft had broken the law, Microsoft has then 
broken the law in other ways and claimed innocence because the 
contracts did not explicitly forbid breaking the law in this 
particular new way. Without any reasonable threat of serious 
punishment, all further such contracts are certain to be flouted in 
the same manner, and the failure of the government to seek 
additional punishment against Microsoft for failing to abide by the 
earlier consent decrees, especially after the government has already 
pressed and won its case, shows a lack of willpower to enforce the 
terms of the existing agreements. By their previous conduct, it 
stands to reason that Microsoft will exploit this lack of will to 
enforce the law.
    Following are descriptions of a few of Microsoft's better known 
acts as examples of the company's general behaviour: When there were 
equivalent alternatives to Microsoft's Disk Operating System and 
Microsoft Windows was not an operating system but a separate 
application product, Microsoft introduced a programming routine into 
a version of Windows that would detect whether it was running on one 
of these alternate operating systems and if so print a message 
stating that an error had occurred.
    Microsoft distributed this version to technology writers and 
enthusiasts who took the message to mean and reported it as meaning 
that Windows might not run well under any operating systems other 
than Microsoft's, a notion that Microsoft had been actively 
spreading at the time. (Examining the Windows AARD Detection Code, 
Dr Dobbs Journal, 1993) Microsoft has paid employees and outside 
agencies to write letters to the editors of newspapers and 
magazines, and more recently to the States'' attorneys general 
pursuing cases against Microsoft, pushing a pro-Microsoft viewpoint 
while claiming to be independent; and Microsoft employees have 
posted pro-Microsoft messages to Internet newsgroups and message 
boards while claiming to be independent. (Microsoft Plans Stealth 
Blitz to Mend Its Image, Los Angeles Times, April 10, 1998; Also the 
Phil Bucking and Steve Barkto incidents, and the recent letter 
writing campaign from the grave to state attorneys general) Given 
this history, it should be

[[Page 27745]]

expected that some of the public comments on this issue are from 
people and organizations paid by Microsoft to write or from people 
directly influenced by public relations companies paid by Microsoft.
    During the time of the ``Browser Wars'', the 
installation routine for most Microsoft products would also install 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser without asking for the 
user's permission and regardless of whether Internet Explorer was a 
requirement for whatever product was being installed. Microsoft also 
threatened computer makers with the revoking of their license to 
sell Windows unless the computer makers stopped installing products 
that competed with Internet Explorer. Microsoft's famous investment 
in Apple came with the condition that Apple would drop Netscape's 
Navigator web browser and instead make Microsoft's Internet Explorer 
the only browser offered on systems it shipped.
    Microsoft has begun patenting routines needed for programmers to 
write software that is compatible with Microsoft's software, and has 
forced programmers to remove such compatibility. (Microsoft Patents 
ASF File Format, http://www.advogato.org/article/101.html) While 
this is their right, it makes compatibility with Microsoft software 
impossible.
    Microsoft and its representatives perjured themselves repeatedly 
during the trial under Judge Jackson, and Microsoft produced and 
presented as evidence a doctored video demonstration purporting to 
illustrate the effects of certain changes to Windows 98.
    Microsoft in its actions has shown itself to be a criminal 
organization with little respect or regard for the laws of the 
United States of America, little respect or regard for the truth, 
and with little respect or regard for the freedom of the 
marketplace.
    To decide upon a punishment, the main end must be to prevent and 
discourage Microsoft from continuing to carry out further criminal 
acts. It is less important to make reparations towards consumers and 
competitors harmed or to consider the economic impact of the 
punishment. The result must also treat noncommercial computer users 
and programmers, such as hobbyists and universities, as fairly as 
businesses are treated.
    A fine is the most obvious method of punishment against a 
business. However, a fine absent of other punishment will do nothing 
to prevent Microsoft from continuing to carry out criminal acts as 
Microsoft has enough liquid assets on hand to painlessly pay any but 
the most extreme fine.
    Another consent decree may be necessary to state specific 
violations of the law that Microsoft has committed. This would come 
with two caveats: It must not leave open the possibility of allowing 
Microsoft to violate the law in ways which other companies are not 
permitted without government favour, as many contracts between 
government and businesses do; and a consent decree absent of 
additional punishment will not dissuade Microsoft from continuing to 
carry out criminal acts, as earlier consent decrees have not.
    The removal of Microsoft's government granted trade protection, 
in the form of copyrights and patents, on certain of their products 
is another option that could be considered. A similar option to be 
considered is the seizure of certain of Microsoft's trade secrets 
and their release to the public domain. A severe form of punishment 
along these lines, which has not been used against a major business 
in recent history, would be the revocation of Microsoft's corporate 
charter and right to do business within the United States.
    Some have suggested that Microsoft's source code be released 
under the GNU public license used by the Free Software Foundation. I 
do not agree that this is appropriate, as the benefits would nearly 
exclusively be towards hobbyists. It has also been suggested by the 
States that Microsoft be made to make its Office suite of products 
capable of running on operating systems that compete with Windows. 
Again, I do not agree with this proposal as, while Office has a 
monopoly sized user base and is a major source of Microsoft's 
revenue, it is not the focus of the case against Microsoft and 
several able competitors exist.
    Microsoft has offered, as a settlement to one of the cases 
against it, to present computers running its software to the 
nation's public schools at its cost. As schools contain a large 
number of computers running Apple hardware and software, and these 
computers would be replaced by the Microsoft computers, such an 
offer in fact benefits Microsoft rather than punishes and as such 
should not be considered.
    Since the core of the case is about Microsoft embedding products 
into their Windows operating system, and a major complaint in the 
industry is of the difficulty of attaining compatibility with 
Microsoft's operating system, I suggest that the punishment include 
the seizure and placement in the public domain of all the source 
files within the development branch of the Windows operating system 
current to the date of the new decision, including the source code 
to all programs and libraries that Microsoft considers a part of 
their OS and is included with Windows in sales to consumers and 
OEMs. In addition, Microsoft should be stripped of ability to use 
their patent protections to prevent others from developing products 
derived from the publicly released source code.
    This would punish Microsoft by allowing others to immediately 
build and distribute operating systems equal to Microsoft's and in 
doing so threaten Microsoft's market position. With OEMs able to 
build their own Windows-like systems, most of the points in the 
proposed consent decree become moot. The process of making products 
compatible with Windows and its associated programs would be greatly 
eased with the metaphorical blueprints to Windows publicly 
available.
    Whatever solution is decided upon, it must hold to these points: 
Microsoft must be given a punishment, not simply a warning, as they 
continue to ignore prior warnings given them; the punishment must 
take into account Microsoft's positions of monopoly power and where 
they have abused this power to muscle into other industries as 
relevant to the court case; the punishment should favour consumers 
and the marketplace over Microsoft or a few of its competitors, 
while not discouraging innovation or competition against Microsoft. 
Fairness towards Microsoft is unimportant as fairness is more than 
Microsoft has given others.
    With respect and regards,
    David M. Turover
    Petaluma, CA



MTC-00026079

From: William G. Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:22pm
Subject: I have reviewed the settlement and
    I have reviewed the settlement and urge the DOJ to accept it. I 
feel that the carping by a number of other manufacturers is just 
``whistling in the wind,'' including those states who 
reject the offer and mine is one of them. I am a former aircraft 
company executive who is now retired.
    William G. Robinson
    Topeka, Kansas



MTC-00026080

From: Mary Bertogli
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/26/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 26, 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 writing this letter to ask that you reconsider the decision 
to settle the United States Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit 
against Microsoft Corporation. American consumers may have been 
overcharged $20 billion by the Microsoft monopoly. My concern is 
that your agreement with Bill Gates'' company does nothing to 
neither rectify past sins by this company nor protect against future 
gauging.
    As you know, at least ten consumer groups disagree with your 
agreement to settle. Microsoft has little incentive to change any of 
its practices. Their concessions of handing over some operating 
systems code and offering manufacturers some sovereignty over Media 
Player amounts to little more than a light slap on the wrists for a 
multi-billion dollar company.
    I strongly agree with my state's Attorney General, Tom Miller, 
and the action taken to reject this Microsoft agreement. I believe 
that Mr. Miller and the other eight state attorneys general see the 
many loopholes and problems with enforcement that does little to 
affect change in the computer software industry. Splitting Microsoft 
into two or three companies may not be the proper response, but 
neither is this.
    Your decision to prematurely end litigation against Microsoft is 
a mistake. The agreement offers no real incentive to stop 
monopolistic, anti-trust efforts. It won't help much smaller 
companies compete and it doesn't serve the American consumer. Please 
continue to go after Microsoft. It is a duty of the Justice 
Department to protect the average citizen from companies that have 
grown too large and too powerful by questionable business practices.

[[Page 27746]]

    Sincerely,
    Mary E. Bertogli
    3507 Southern Woods Dr.
    Des Moines, Iowa 50321
    CC: Iowa Attorney General



MTC-00026081

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
416 Maren Street
West Hempstead, NY 11552
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to have my opinion entered in the public record in full 
support of Microsoft. I understand the terms of the settlement 
Microsoft has agreed to, and feel that the Justice Department has no 
other choice but to make the settlement final, for the good of the 
people. The settlement is extremely fair to all of Microsoft's 
rivals and gives them a more level playing field to compete within 
the ever-changing computing and software industry. Microsoft's 
competitors will be able to give computer users the choice of using 
Microsoft or non-Microsoft software features within the Windows 
operating system.
    I have followed this case for some time, watching and waiting 
for something to happen to resolve this issue. The Justice 
Department has slapped Microsoft in the face for the past three 
years for being more successful than any corporation. This is not 
the first time a company has been legally stopped by the government, 
and I am sad to say, it won't be the last. So much money and 
government, public and private resources have been squandered trying 
to prove Microsoft has operated unfairly as a monopoly. What 
Microsoft has done is give the world incredible software technology 
that has helped ever day lives and businesses run more efficiently 
and increasing productivity. The competition has to date, not been 
able to produce anything close in comparison to Windows.
    Sincerely,
    Richard A. Seery ??. Mary P. Seery



MTC-00026082

From: O Trapp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:28pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Greetings,
    I am writing in response to the opportunity that the interested 
public has in the Microsoft Settlement. There are several issues 
that have bothered me thoughout this case. Many times in the past, 
Microsoft has blantently ignored ethics in their interaction with 
competitors.
    I was very sorry to hear that Microsoft had done whatever they 
had done to get the Dept of Justice to cancel the court planned 
split-up of Microsoft. Now I have read that once again Microsoft has 
acted as though they are above the law, perhaps because they have 
the money to attempt to buy what they want. I request that the 
courts require full disclosure from Microsoft of all contacts with 
the government under the Tunney Act .
    For the record, I own substantial shares of Microsoft. I truely 
wish they were more ethical in their pursuit of business and would 
not repeatedly act as if they were above the law.
    Sincerely,
    Orlin D. Trapp
    501 Portola Road, #8143
    Portola Valley, CA 94028-7604



MTC-00026083

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Justice Department,
    Consumers interest have been well served and it is time to end 
this costly and damaging litigation. Continuing this legal battle 
will only benefit a few wealthy competitors, lawyers, and a few 
special interests.
    Sincerely,
    George and Mary Osborn



MTC-00026084

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Urge you to expedite and approve proposed antitrust settlement 
between DoJ, 9 states and Microsoft in the interests of the the 
consuming public. Lawsuits of this type hinder competition, and the 
innovation that the U.S. economy so badly needs now. Do not put the 
U. S. government in the position of standing in the way of the 
advancement of the economy.
    J. Kahn
    [email protected]



MTC-00026085

From: Melinda Stimpson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am actually Mike Stimpson, not Melinda, despite what the E-
mail header says. I'm writing from home, which is why the header 
says Melinda.
    I have worked as a computer programmer for 15 years, and have 
tried to keep up on what is going on in the industry. I have used 
(and written programs for) Microsoft and non-Microsoft operating 
systems.
    I consider the proposed Microsoft settlement to be very 
inadequate. It does not address the following issues:
    Microsoft is not actually punished for its'' illegal acts. 
That is, they are placed under restraint for ongoing conduct, but 
Microsoft has already profited from their anticompetitive acts, and 
that is not addressed at all. It seems to me that the amount of 
Microsoft's profit arising from the acts should be determined 
(that's hard, I know). Then Microsoft should be fined triple the 
amount of their unjust gains.
    Microsoft is still at a huge competitive advantage in 
applications due to their monopoly in operating systems. This needs 
to be addressed by requiring that the programmers writing 
applications for Microsoft use only publicly available information 
about the operating system. Otherwise, they may be able to use 
features--typically function calls--that are not available 
to others. This lets Microsoft leverage their operating system 
monopoly to an advantage in applications. Even as Microsoft's 
applications programmers should not have an advantage in the 
available operating system features that they can use, they also 
should not have an advantage in when they can use them. That is, if 
the Microsoft programmers learn about the new operating system 
features six months before their competitors, then, all other things 
being equal, their applications will incorporate the new features 
six months earlier. Again, this lets Microsoft leverage the 
operating systems monopoly to an advantage in applications.
    It seems to me that, given the previous history of Microsoft 
anti-trust consent decrees, that this consent decree needs to have 
some concrete penalties for violation that are stronger than merely 
extending the same consent decree for two more years. If Microsoft 
violates the consent decree, what prevents them from violating it 
for the additional two years? There must be a more severe 
consequence for violation than merely extending the consent decree.
    In light of the above points, I urge that the proposed consent 
decree be either rejected or considerably strengthened. We need a 
consent decree that actually addresses the issues of Microsoft's 
anti-competitive behavior, not merely one that brings an end to the 
case.



MTC-00026086

From: Virginia Clifton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I'm writing to urge you to support the settlement recently 
reached between the United States Department of Justice and 
Microsoft. I feel this is a lawsuit that should have never been 
launched against Microsoft and believe that it is now time to end it 
so Microsoft can return to the business of software development. 
Indeed, Microsoft must feel the same way because it agreed to terms 
in the settlement that went far beyond the scope of the original 
lawsuit.
    Microsoft has, for example, agreed to license Windows to the 20 
largest computer makers on virtually identical terms and condition. 
Microsoft has also agreed to grant computer makers and software 
developers broad rights to configure Windows to remove Microsoft 
products and substitute competing, non-Microsoft products in their 
places. For example, Netscape Navigator can be installed in place of 
Internet Explorer; RealPlayer in place of Windows Media Player; and 
AOL Instant Messenger in place of Windows Messenger. Microsoft has 
agreed to not retaliate against computer makers and software 
developers who choose to do this. Further, Microsoft has agreed to 
not enter into any agreements with other companies that would 
obligate them to exclusively distribute or promote Windows 
technology.
    Based on the facts of the settlement, I encourage you to accept 
the terms of the

[[Page 27747]]

settlement so that Microsoft can carry on the business of developing 
innovative software.
    Sincerely,
    Virginia Clifton
    1125 Olympia Avenue NE
    Olympia, WA 98506



MTC-00026087

From: Sharon Corboy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:32pm
Subject: aol suit
    aol lost in the market place. bardsdale could not compete on the 
merits of his product.because microsoft makes a better product
    thomas a corboy
    tccorbor@earthlink .net



MTC-00026088

From: Charles E Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time for the Microsoft settlement to be implemented and 
let business run its natural course. Too much time and money has 
been spent to try and satisfy Microsoft's competitors.
    Thank you



MTC-00026089

From: Theo Armour
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement terms proposed by the Court of 
Appeals are reasonable.
    I hope that the company that brought the Internet to the great 
majority of desktops in this world will be be permitted to continue 
giving users affordable, usable and new technologies.
    Theo Armour
    [email protected]



MTC-00026090

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:34pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I think the antitrust settlement between the Dept. of Justice 
and Microsoft is a fair settlement and should be takeing for the 
good of all parties.
    Paul schouest 25345 Fenner
    Street Plaquemine, la. 70764
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026091

From: Zelie, Elizabeth A.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/26/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am writing in regard to the settlement between Microsoft (PFJ) 
and the Justice Department. As a student who has taken many computer 
classes, I have benefited from the products produced by Microsoft, 
and I am excited to see what they will come out with next.
    However, having said that, I do believe that they should not be 
allowed to continue their monopolistic practices. They violated 
anti-trust laws and should be punished for that. I am a Business Law 
student and if I have learned anything in my studies, it is that 
laws are made to be enforced and not to be broken. If Microsoft is 
not punished for violating a law, but is instead given a pat on the 
back and taken care of by PFJ, then why should we enforce the law 
when anyone else violates it?
    We are blessed to live in a country with a free market economy, 
but what good does that do if companies are allowed to become 
monopolies? That seems to go against the very principles on which 
this country was founded. Please reexamine this case and do your 
best to change this settlement. I will be praying that God guides 
you in making this decision.
    Sincerely,
    Liz Zelie
    Elizabeth Zelie
    200 Campus Drive, Grove City College Box #2515, Grove City, 
PA 16127-2197
    [email protected]
    CC:'stopmicrosoft(a)yahoo.com''



MTC-00026093

From: Gemfield Association
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs,
    We don't need any more special interests trying to defeat 
consumers. So why drag out this battle any more? Only a few special 
interests could benefit from that. The Tunney Act seems to me to 
well serve the interests of the consumers, and the time to end the 
litigation has arrived.
    Sincerely,
    David B. Robinson, J.D. (Hon.), M.Sc.



MTC-00026094

From: Scott Tillema
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs--
    I do not support your actions against Microsoft, and I believe 
that a great injustice is being committed.
    To uphold ``justice'' is to ensure that a person (or 
persons) get exactly what they deserve. As a citizen of the United 
States, I expect my government to serve this principle of justice 
when protecting the most essential value that we all cherish: 
freedom.
    By freedom, I am refering to our constitutional right to 
determine, pursue, create, and protect our own values. The opposite 
of freedom is slavery; it is the act of initiating force against 
others as a means of acquiring values. The only *moral* use of force 
is as a means of protection or retaliation against those who would 
initiate it. Thus, force should only be used as a means of 
protecting freedom from slavery.
    Microsoft has not committed any injustice. They have *earned* 
their market share by giving the market what it wants. When faced 
with a challenge, their focus their power and resources on making a 
better product. If necessary, they have put restrictions on how 
*their* product may be purchased. They do anything that is *within 
their power* to advance and protect their products--their 
values. Yet they have never initiated *force* against any other 
person. Every man is free to accept Microsoft's terms or part 
company--unlike a law of the government that imposes its terms 
by threat of imprisonment. (In fact, as a consumer and computer 
user, I freely choose to use many non-Microsoft owned 
products--including a non-Microsoft internet browser (called 
Opera)!)
    I ask you to look at Microsoft and ask yourself: would you 
classify this corporation in the same category as bank robbers, con-
men, rapists, murderers, or terrorists? Do they even share *one 
degree* of the essence that makes these men criminal? Because, this 
is what you have done.
    The prosecution of Microsoft is a grave *injustice*, committed 
on behalf of those who would use the government to impose their 
values by *force*. By pursuing this case against Microsoft, the 
government has *unfairly* given my fellow citizens the priveledge of 
using the state sanctioned use of force to achieve their desires. I 
recognize this as an act of slavery.
    Your justification of this injustice is the Sherman Act; a law 
that restricts the freedom of businesses to determine how their 
products are traded. The purpose of this act is to impose some ill-
conceived economic theory as a matter of law. As it is written it 
makes every business subject to the whim of a judge's interpretation 
rather than the facts of reality.
    Justice in the world of economics is not served by a judge's 
whim--it is served by reality. Microsoft, as does any business, 
recognizes this reality. Regardless of any attempt Microsoft has 
taken to protect its current products, it cannot escape the need to 
innovate or create new products. In fact, this is the reason that 
Netscape lost its own market dominance: regardless of price, 
eventually Microsoft had to produce a better product. Unless 
Microsoft continues to innovate and improve, it too will lose its 
market dominance.
    You can see that justice is done: see to it that Microsoft, all 
businessmen, and all Americans are set free from the tyranny of such 
laws as the Sherman Act that impose slavery on our lives.



MTC-00026095

From: Jonathan Holbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't believe the proposed settlement is sufficient to stop 
future monopolistic behaviour from Microsoft Corp.
    Thank you,
    Jonathan Holbert



MTC-00026096

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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.

[[Page 27748]]

    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of 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 McGarry
    7607 Weeping Willow Circle
    Sarasota, FL 34241



MTC-00026097

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:40pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I am addressing myself to this subject once again in view of the 
recent events wherein AOL has instituted suit against Microsoft. As 
we hold stock in the technology companies hoping that one day our 
grandchildren will benefit through the absorbtion of college costs 
by said investments. Now I find that the situation has progressed 
from the sublime to the ridiculous. The
    Microsoft competition obviously disregards the effect their 
actions has created in the marketplace. The officials of these 
corporations need not worry about the diminishment of their present 
financial values as they will eventually find retention bonuses or 
future stock options that will regain present day losses, but the 
individual investors will not be so fortunate.
    The states still involved in the case are more likely supporting 
the tech companies within their geographical areas and the heck with 
everyone else. It appears that they will not be satisfied untill 
they establish what the competition desires It is time to get this 
situation behind us- It is time to remove the shadows of uncertainty 
from the market.AND it is time to remove the shackles from the 
economy that has, in my opinion, sufferred as a result of the added 
pressures. n closing I can only state that the uncertainty and the 
actions of the remaining states in opposition to the Microsoft 
decision of the government has, in my opinion, caused greater 
financial loss to the investors than the damage the competition and/
or Attorney Generals of the respective States claim that Microsoft 
has caused the public.
    Very truly yours..
    dmiller



MTC-00026098

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get this case settled. We NEED Microsoft! It's technology 
has been very important to me and to everyone I know. Without it's 
contributions, we couldn't have made the major progress we have 
made. It's time for this whole mess to be over!
    Please adopt the terms of the settlement as they are now and get 
this thing finished.
    THANK YOU!
    Nancy Jarrard
    15807 Gooseberry Way
    Apple Valley, MN 55124



MTC-00026099

From: G Eisenberger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a retired person who uses Microsoft software, I urge you to 
settle the DOJ lawsuit.
    Years ago when I started working with computers, you had to do 
most of your own programming. It was time consuming, frequently 
inaccurate, and totally frustrating. With the Ms windows operating 
system, I can get up-to-the-minute news, check on my investments, 
communicate with family and friends, send photos, play games, etc. 
Last year I was able to get in touch with my buddies from my Navy 
days and we had a reunion after 47 years.
    When you consider the cost of Ms software, compared to cable TV 
or phone service, it is a real bargain.
    Let them keep adding features and improving this wonderful 
product.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Eisenberger, Age 67



MTC-00026100

From: Quin Blackburn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing as a citizen concerned about the proposed final 
judgement between the United States and the Microsoft Corporation. I 
am a Design Engineer in California, with a significant background in 
computers and programming. I am also a user of Unix, Linux, and 
other competing operating systems, and therefore I have been exposed 
to how Microsoft has maintained and extended its monopoly, and I 
feel that I have been negatively effected by their activities.
    While the judgement seems to address a number of the activities 
that Microsoft has used to hold and extend their monopoly, I think 
it has a number of weaknesses that will prevent it from 
accomplishing its purpose. The most likely result I see of approving 
this agreement is that Microsoft will continue their anticompetitive 
practices for several more years, followed by another lengthy 
antitrust trial. The irony is see is that in some cases they may use 
the proposed judgement as justification for their anticompetitive 
actions, as it specifically allows some of them to continue.
    In section III parts A and B, the intent seems to be to allow 
OEMs to use Microsoft and competing products freely, without 
allowing Microsoft to take action to prevent them from doing so. 
However, it leaves Microsoft ample opportunity to continue to engage 
in anticompetitive practices. III.A.2 says that Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against an OEM for shipping computers that have a 
competing operating system on them, in addition to Microsoft's 
operating system. However, if the OEM ships any computers that have 
only the competing operating system, then retaliation is allowed. In 
effect, this can be read as requiring the OEM to put a Microsoft 
operating system on all the machines they ship.
    Section III.B also specifies Covered OEMs for many of the 
protections. There are a great many computer manufacturers in this 
country and abroad, but it seems that only 20 will be protected.
    Another thing I notice is that there is no mention of bundled 
products. This strikes me as allowing them to give discounts on 
seperate packages, like Microsoft Office, to vendors that behave the 
way Microsoft wants them to with regard to their operating systems 
products. These provisions have been used in previous OEM 
agreements. Since a large percentage of personal computers ship with 
an office package, this seems to give them a significant loophole to 
favor certain vendors without changing their cost schedule for their 
operating system products.
    It strikes me as odd that there was no mention of Microsoft's 
applications, specifically Microsoft Office, in the proposed 
judgement.
    While the trial was based on their operating system monopoly, 
they have a significant monopoly in the standard office application 
market that they use synergistically with their operating system 
monopoly to prevent competition in both areas. I believe that the 
findings of fact mentioned that they used the threat of withholding 
Microsoft Office for Macintosh as a lever against the Apple 
Corporation. The applications are used to support the operating 
system monopoly, because the lack of a version of Microsoft Office, 
as the most common office suite of applications, for competing 
operating systems is a large part of the ``Applications barrier 
to entry'' for those systems. The operating system monopoly is 
used to support the applications monopoly largely by bundling. 
Microsoft can afford to charge less for their Office suite because 
they are sellling it with another product, the operating system.
    The proposed final judgement makes no attempt to address the 
applications monopoly, which, while unfortunate, is understandable 
since the trial concerned their operating systems only. However, it 
should address how they use their applications to the support of 
their operating system monopoly. The disclosure provisions should 
include the APIs and file formats for Microsoft Office, so that 
competing operating systems can have a fully compatible office 
suite. The Operating System licensing sections need to mention 
associated licenses, so that Microsoft doesn't use discounts on one 
product in lieu of the other.
    The disclosure of the APIs, under section III.D, is done via the 
Microsoft Developer Network. While greater disclosure would aid 
competition, the choice of MSDN is questionable. In order to use 
MSDN, a developer needs to accept a ``Click Through'' 
agreement drafted by Microsoft. Having wanted to support a Microsoft 
file format in a competing operating system, I ran afoul of that 
agreement, which disallowed me from

[[Page 27749]]

doing so. Indeed, the proposed final judgement only requires the 
disclosure ``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product''. Since the entire intent of 
the judgement is to encourage competition to the Microsoft Windows 
monopoly, allowing the disclosure only to users of Windows, and for 
products that only run on Windows seems to completely defeat the 
purpose. This disclosure will only strengthen the Windows monopoly.
    One significant thing I see lacking in the proposed judgement is 
any sort of penalty. The Microsoft Corporation has been ruled to 
have broken the law, but the judgement does nothing to ``deny 
to the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation''. At 
best, the judgement simply tells them not to do it again. There 
seems to be no reason for Microsoft not to continue its 
anticompetitive activities, since past transgressions of the law 
have not been penalized, they have no reason to believe that future 
ones will be. The judgement gives no means of enforcing even its own 
requirements, save returning to the courtroom and starting this 
process over from the beginning.
    At the risk of destroying my credibility, I have to say that 
Microsoft works in its own interests alone. They have no interest in 
competition, and no interest in or respect for the law. They will 
not follow the intent of an agreement, only the strict letter of it 
in their most favorable interpretation. If the judgement is not 
airtight, Microsoft will willfully continue their practices, citing 
any weakenesses in the agreement as allowing them to do so. The 
Microsoft Corporation has been convicted of having undue power and 
an agreement that has any less power will simply be pushed aside 
like any other competitor to their business.
    Also, at greater risk, I would like to note that Microsoft has 
in the past hired marketing/PR firms which would write a large 
number of letters from ``concerned citizens'' in favor of 
Microsoft. I would hazard a guess that you have a significant number 
of these letters that have been commissioned in the interests of 
interfering with the legal process in their own favor.
    Thank you for your time,
    Quin Blackburn
    Valencia, CA



MTC-00026101

From: Rob Cowart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My mother is a teacher in an elementary school in North Texas, 
with about 20 children per grade. They have one computer in each 
classroom, and it's a Macintosh. If Microsoft gives the school new 
computers, the children will learn to use those, maybe they will 
dispose of the older Macs, and then Microsoft will have taken a 
market away from Apple.
    The children will feel comfortable with Windows, and may 
continue to use it all of their lives. The settlement gives 
Microsoft the chance to get customers for 80 years or so. If the 
point of the settlement is to increase Microsoft's market share in 
the schools, then the Settlement is perfect. But it's not, the 
reverse needs to happen. Only by competing against itself can 
Microsoft lose market share. The government split up AT&T, and 
competition increased and consumers benefited, eventually; this is 
no different and I don't understand why the government is treating 
it like it is.
    Thanks for reading this,
    Robert



MTC-00026102

From: Elizabeth Allison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:45pm
Subject: settlement misguided
    Elizabeth Allison of New York and New Jersey weighing in here to 
say that the proposed settlement in no way addresses Microsoft's 
gross abuse of its consumers and, in fact, opens the door to 
further, albeit different, abuse. Will send longer and hopefully 
more eloquent words to same effect within 24 hours, time allowing, 
but wanted to get at least this much said now.
    EA



MTC-00026103

From: Carolyn Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata B. Hesse:
    I am emailing about the Microsoft Settlement. It is important 
that we protect the rights of individuals against corporations in 
America, and Microsoft is not going to concede unless we make them.
    I'd like to focus on just one of these issues which needs to be 
remedied. Protocols and file formats need to be openly available. 
For one, it is a widely accepted fact in theoretical research that 
the only way a protocal can be really secure, is if it is based on 
the theory in its algorithms, not on the secretness of its methods. 
When Microsoft hides its protocols, it may leave security holes that 
we cannot discover until they are broken. Secondly, and most 
importantly, Microsoft uses its monopoly in the Operating Systems 
market to create a monopoly in the software market.
    If I create a file using Microsoft Office, I should have the 
right to use that information with another operating system. 
Microsoft needs to be required to make their file formats available 
to other programs so that I own my own files. At this point in time, 
my creations in Microsoft are very difficult to export, and in a 
certain way, Microsoft owns them. I request you to protect my work, 
and my rights as an individual.
    Thank you,
    Carolyn Cooper
    Princeton, NJ



MTC-00026104

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern!
    I am sending this e-mail to voice my opinion on the antitrust 
settlement between Microsoft, the Dept. of Justice and nine states. 
Microsoft maybe a bully with their competitors and customers; large 
companies flex their muscles all the time. I am a small 
manufacturer, and you should see how the big retailers bully me 
around! They are creative and built the company from scratch, unlike 
Standard Oil, for example, who purchases other companies to create a 
monopoly and for whom the antitrust laws were written. US companies 
compete around the global. Would you rather a Japanese company have 
the monopoly on Window? No, I rather it be a US company. 
Accordingly, I think the settlement is fair, and you should take up 
Microsoft's offer to supply the poor schools with the latest 
technology as part of their penalty.
    Best Regards,
    Ed Esposito
    Professional Folding Carts to make life EASIER!
    www.FoldingCart.com
    Tel. 718-693-9700



MTC-00026105

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the Microsoft Settlement and finish this case. 
Quit spending taxpayer money on this matter. And please don't accept 
any more lawsuits about this. Microsoft should not have to be tried 
again on the same or a related matter.
    The United States government should never have been involved in 
a lawsuit against Microsoft in the first place. I disagree with the 
current anti-trust laws. The government has no business fighting 
against corporations of our fellow citizens, unless they are doing 
something actually criminal (such as covering up drug operations or 
terrorist activities, etc.)
    AT&T should never have been broken up, either. Large size 
and creativity are not criminal. Making a product widely available 
is not criminal. Competitors have the burden of competing, that is, 
of finding their own innovative ways to make a place for themselves 
in the market. Competitors should not have the government's and 
taxpayers'' help to become bullies. Competitors could ask the 
taxpayers to help fund better education for future employees for the 
workforce, in general.
    The companies that could not hire the brains to figure out ways 
to effectively compete with Microsoft had no right to take their 
competitor to court. Rather than wasting taxpayer's time and money 
on a lawsuit, they and the government should have spent the money 
encouraging the education of potential scientists, engineers, 
computer programmers, etc. They should have screened potential 
applicants and sent them to appropriate schools, keeping a close eye 
on the quality of training they were receiving. What a difference 
this would have made!
    This country's level of science training has fallen behind what 
it was in the 1960's under President Kennedy. We should not hinder 
good thinking and the resulting sensible business practices. We 
should encourage scientific and technological education, research, 
and progress.
    This is relevant to the present case, because, as I mentioned 
above, the lack of good potential employees for competing

[[Page 27750]]

companies is one of the reasons that a case like this ever came to 
be.
    Thank you.
    MaryAnn Stuart



MTC-00026106

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:46pm
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,
    Jim Haughton
    600 Green St.
    Kingstree, SC 29556



MTC-00026107

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am a student at Stony Brook University and is currently 
seeking acceptance into the Computer Science Major. I have been 
reading about the ``final judgment'' in the Microsoft 
Case, and I feel that Microsoft is a monopoly. Almost every PC on 
the planet has Microsoft as their operating system, and I feel that 
other smaller companies with better software and new ideas should 
get the chance to promote their company. Therefore, I feel that the 
Supreme Court's decision to control the promotion and use of 
Microsoft programs and putting strict conditions on the licensing 
rights of Microsoft to other companies was the right thing to do. 
Even though just like many other people around the world, I also use 
a Windows operating system and will have to get to know the new 
operating systems that will be coming out after this decision is 
made final.
    P.S. Thank you for letting our voices be heard in this decision.



MTC-00026108

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed MS settlement is AWFUL. Don't accept it.
    Craig Hein



MTC-00026109

From: adam freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I really disagree with the proposed settlement. Make Microsoft 
buy however much its willing to donate of its own products from 
someone else. Like Apple and Corel and Adobe. Don't let Redmond 
extend their monopoly into the schools. Punish them instead.



MTC-00026110

From: Cyrus Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:53pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    As currently structured the proposed settled as defined by the 
DOJ does not actually curtail microsoft's practices. The settlement 
definitely does not benefit the consumer, small software developer 
or large software developer. Microsoft does not encourage innovation 
but actually eliminates and crushes innovative products if the are 
perceived to be any type of threat to their operating system. The 
penalties should be more restrictive and actually enforceable if 
there is to be any benefit for the consumer, competition and 
innovation from other consumers. No one should be forced to accept 
something because there are no viable choices. That is what 
microsoft and this lackluster settlement propose to do, remove the 
ability to make a choice, just accept what is given to you.
    I want to make my own choice!!!!
    v/r
    cyrus walker



MTC-00026111

From: Alison Randall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I wanted to submit my comments on the antitrust settlement 
between Microsoft, the Department of Justice and nine states before 
Monday's deadline. I believe the terms of the settlement are 
reasonable and fair to all parties involved and go beyond the ruling 
by the Court of Appeals. This settlement represent the best 
opportunity for Microsoft and the industry to move forward. Adopt 
the settlement and let's move on to more pressing issues.
    Thank you,
    Alison H. Randall
    Dublin, Ohio



MTC-00026113

From: Scott Cassill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Would you please discount the specifics and get to the 
generalities of acknowledging almost instant obsolescence and the 
need to develope newer, faster and more efficient programs. 
Consumers are greatly benefitted by Microsoft's software. Let the 
consuming public decide at the cash register. Let Microsoft continue 
to help materially in our losing balance of trade 
``battle.'' Let all the titans of tech get to work. They 
create a great deal of wealth, which is taxable and consumable. This 
is what made America great.
    Let's roll !
    Scott and Joyce Cassill
    Nordland, WA 98358



MTC-00026114

From: Chad Hasselius
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Under the 
proposed settlement Microsoft will surely continue their anti-
competitive practices and ultimately hurt not only consumers, but 
the future in computing as well. With computers increasingly being 
integral to society this proposed settlement will ultimately hurt 
all of society for years to come in many ways. If you go ahead with 
this settlement and concede to the political reasons for it, this 
will definately be a dark spot in history. Please do not go ahead 
with it if you care at all about the ramifications of it, stay 
strong and fight for the people.
    Chad Hasselius
    9163 Kirkwood Ln.
    Maple Grove, MN 55369



MTC-00026115

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:59pm
Subject: Hi
    I wouls say that both United States and Microsoft are right at 
their own sides. I say this because Microsoft wants to be popular 
llike any other company's goal would be so it sells its software 
almost in all pc's. They want people to use their internet browser 
too so they made their OS's like that the people has to accept the 
agreement to install Their bowser too in order to get their OS 
installed. It's kind of enforcement that they're doing but I think 
that any company who would like o be popular and rich will 
definately do that. Now on the other hand, United States is right 
that Microsoft shouldn't do like that to sell their internet 
browsers like that because like that it'll be a monopoly. No other 
company can sell their product, for example Netscape. They want to 
sell their software too. So I think that the case is good in my 
opinion because If you put yourself in either Microsoft side or 
United States side you would do the same thing that they're doing. 
Thanks



MTC-00026116

From: Jean-Pierre Mouilleseaux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i truly am disappointed with the proposed microsoft settlement. 
i would have expected more from a country that was so determined to 
shatter telecommunications and oil monopolies of the past. the 
current settlement allows microsoft to further extend it poisonous 
reach, which seems rather paradoxical. it is difficult to see if 
microsoft is being punished or rewarded for their perpetually anti-
competitive behavior. please reconsider the settlement.
    regards,
    ://jean-pierre



MTC-00026117

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 27751]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:01pm
Subject: Settlement
    Please except the microsoft settlement and move on. we all love 
microsoft and so do most of the manufacturers...................



MTC-00026118

From: Fortunato Velasquez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:01pm
Subject: settlement
    U.S District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly: January 26, 2002 It 
is my opinion that the proposed settlement with the Microsoft 
company is NOT ``in the public interest.'' The company 
should be prosecuted as predators who have defrauded the public and 
pursued monopolistic business policies.
    Thank You,
    Fortunato Vel'squez
    Seattle, WA



MTC-00026119

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From my reading of the settlement, I do not see justice at all. 
It sounds to me as if Microsoft is being rewarded rather than 
punished and nothing is being done to prevent their unscrupulous 
business practices. As a software developer myself for over 20 
years, I have found Microsoft to be nothing but an impediment by 
purposely destroying existing standards and thereby slowing new 
innovation.
    Please consider a punishment more suiting than a simple slap on 
the wrist as is currently proposed.



MTC-00026120

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:00pm
Subject: Settlement
    Please except the microsoft settlement and move on. we all love 
microsoft and so do most of the manufacturers...................



MTC-00026121

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: I believe the Microsoft settlement is 
fair. It should be completed now.
    Thank you, Dorothy Horstman



MTC-00026122

From: Brad Markham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2'02pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am a software developer. I use many of Microsoft's products 
everyday. I believe Microsoft holds a monopoly in the software 
industry. I am including the text of a column from Byte.com. The 
column, ``The Be View'', was written by Scot Hacker in 
August of 2001. His discussion of why Be, a computer operating 
system, failed, trying to compete with Microsoft, is a glaring 
example of why Microsoft is a monopoly. The settlement, as it 
stands, is a joke to most industry observers. Microsoft was found 
guilty of monopolistic practices. This settlement is a mere slap on 
the wrist. It does nothing to change the fundamental problem with 
Microsoft. This will only be achieved with a much more severe 
punishment. The only way software development companies will have a 
chance of surviving in direct competition with Microsoft is if they 
can compete on a level playing field with Microsoft. This will only 
happen if Microsoft is broken up. Microsoft can not be allowed to 
continue it's current business practices in the future. Breaking up 
Microsoft is the only way that real change will occur in the 
software industry. In a competitive market, companies survive by 
creating a good product at a reasonable price. If the product is 
inferior or too expensive the consumer will buy a competitors 
product, if the competitors product can be easily substituted for 
the original. Microsoft has built it's monopoly by making it very 
difficult to switch to a competitors product. i ask you to consider 
the merits of this article in your decision. You have the power to 
drastically change the software industry for the better.
    Thank you for your time,
    Brad Markham
    Peaceful Coexistence? Right.
    It is statistically unlikely that a person purchasing a new 
computer is ever going to change its operating system the OS that 
comes with the computer you buy at the local computer mega-store is 
probably going to be the OS you use for years, if not forever. And 
while it is technically trivial for a hardware vendor to set up hard 
drives to dual- or triple-boot multiple operating systems, very few 
people have the interest or the huevos to repartition their hard 
drives and install additional OSs after the original point of 
purchase. Therefore, few things could be more financially critical 
to an operating-system vendor than to have one's product 
preinstalled on consumer computers. There is no technical reason why 
CompUSA customers shouldn't be able to walk out of the shop with a 
machine that asks ``Which OS do you want to use today?'' 
upon boot. And yet, even today, after several years of relentless 
news about how Linux is ready for the general desktop and business 
customer, one does not find dual-boot Win/Linux machines from large 
commercial OEMs at any consumer outlet or web shop I know of. Yes, 
you can get dual-boot machines at some of the smaller shops, but 
these are the ones that slip under Microsoft's radar, and there's no 
guarantee that Microsoft won't decide to take action against these 
vendors at some point. And yes, you can buy Linux-only machines from 
vendors such as IBM. But think about it: Why would IBM sell Windows 
machines and Linux machines, but no dual-boot Win/Linux machines? 
The absence is conspicuous. A few years ago, Be's CEO Jean-Louis 
Gass,e used the phrase ``peaceful coexistence with 
Windows'' to describe his company's intended relationship with 
Microsoft on the consumer's hard drive. Later, when it became clear 
that Microsoft had no intention of coexisting with a rival OS vendor 
peacefully, Gass,e recanted, saying, ``I once preached peaceful 
coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense I deserve 
it.'' With so little profit margin in the computer retail 
business, and with so little to set one brand of computer apart from 
another, it would seem that out-of-the-box dual-boot capabilities 
would be a tremendous differentiating factor for hardware vendors. 
It would seem that there would be financial incentives for computer 
vendors to be asking Be for 10,000-license deals. These bundling 
arrangements would be good for Be, good for OEMs, and good for 
consumers. In his own column, Gass,e has written several times about 
Microsoft's Windows OEM License and the ways in which it limits the 
freedoms of PC OEMs. In July 2001, I spoke with Gass,e to find out 
why no dual-boot computers with BeOS or Linux installed alongside 
Windows can be purchased today. In the 1998-1999 timeframe, 
ready to prime the pump with its desktop offering, Be offered BeOS 
for free to any major computer manufacturer willing to preinstall 
BeOS on machines alongside Windows. Although few in the Be community 
ever knew about the discussions, Gass,e says that Be was engaged in 
enthusiastic discussions with Dell, Compaq, Micron, and Hitachi. 
Taken together, preinstallation arrangements with vendors of this 
magnitude could have had a major impact on the future of Be and 
BeOS. But of the four, only Hitachi actually shipped a machine with 
BeOS pre-installed. The rest apparently backed off after a closer 
reading of the fine print in their Microsoft Windows License 
agreements. Hitachi did ship a line of machines (the Flora Prius) 
with BeOS preinstalled, but made changes to the bootloader rendering 
BeOS invisible to the consumer before shipping. Apparently, Hitachi 
received a little visit from Microsoft just before shipping the 
Flora Prius, and were reminded of the terms of the license. Be was 
forced to post detailed instructions on their web site explaining to 
customers how to unhide their hidden BeOS partitions. It is likely 
that most Flora Prius owners never even saw the BeOS installations 
to which they were entitled.
    Bootloader as Trade Secret
    So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The answer 
lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft maintains with 
hardware vendors. More specifically, in the ``Windows 
License'' agreed to by hardware vendors who want to include 
Windows on the computers they sell. This is not the license you 
pretend to read and click ``I Accept'' when installing 
Windows. This license is not available online. This is a 
confidential license, seen only by Microsoft and computer vendors. 
You and I can't read the license because Microsoft classifies it as 
a ``trade secret.'' The license specifies that any machine 
which includes a Microsoft operating system must not also offer a 
nonMicrosoft operating system as a boot option. In other words, a 
computer that offers to boot into Windows upon startup cannot also 
offer to boot into BeOS or Linux. The hardware vendor does not get 
to choose which OSes to install on the machines they sell Microsoft 
does. ``Must not?'' What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the 
vendor's head? Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic 
metaphor. Instead, Microsoft

[[Page 27752]]

threatens to revoke the vendor's license to include Windows on the 
machine if the bootloader license is violated. Because the world 
runs on Windows, no hardware vendor can afford to ship machines that 
don't include Windows alongside whatever alternative they might want 
to offer. The essence of the government's antitrust beef with 
Microsoft is that the company limits competition by leveraging its 
dominant position in the marketplace (it's important to remember 
that monopolies are not illegal abusing them is). To prove its case, 
the government focused on the browser wars and the harm done to 
Netscape by Microsoft's inclusion of a free web browser in the 
operating system. In my opinion, the browser issue pales in 
comparison to the egregiousness of the bootloader situation. The 
browser is arguably an essential component of modern computing a 
commodity product as worthy of inclusion in the OS as a text editor 
or calculator. Be, too, bundles a web browser with its OS, and I'm 
glad they do. Questions of how the browser is integrated are much 
more interesting, since they connect to the point of whether 
Microsoft's browser bundling intent was anticompetitive or not. In 
BeOS, for example, it's always been possible to remove the browser 
from the OS simply by dragging it to the Trash, which is very 
different from the situation under Windows. But I digress. The point 
is that the browser situation is easily debatable, while the 
bootloader situation is far more cut-and-dried. I would wager that 
few lawyers could come up with a cogent argument to describe how 
Microsoft's bootloader policy is not anticompetitive in the 
strictest sense of the term. After all, Microsoft is first and 
foremost an operating-system vendor. Be and Microsoft were competing 
on much more similar territory than were Netscape and Microsoft. But 
when it came to the DOJ vs. Microsoft antitrust trial, things got 
even more interesting.
    DOJ Misses the Point
    On request of the DOJ, Gass,e had several pre-trial 
conversations with prosecuting attorney David Boies* and Assistant 
Attorney General Joel Klein. Gass,e explained the bootloader 
situation to them. They listened and heard. But they did not ask 
Gass,e to testify on the bootloader issue. Instead, they asked 
Gass,e to testify on the matter of browser integration. Gass,e 
warned them that he would be a ``dangerous witness,'' 
since his feelings on browser integration were actually sympathetic 
with Microsoft's. Gass,e wanted to testify on the bootloader issue, 
where he felt the core of the case really rested. Klein and Boies 
told Gass,e he could testify with focus on the ``malicious 
intent'' aspect of the browser integration question, but not on 
the bootloader matter. Needless to say, Gass,e declined to 
participate in the rest of the case. The bootloader issue was raised 
during the trial, however. Raised, but not actually addressed, 
because Microsoft claimed (in a court session closed to the public 
and the media) that the Windows License was a ``trade 
secret.'' However, Microsoft never denied that the license 
exists, and never denied that it works as I've described here. In 
November of 1999, Judge Jackson released his Findings of Fact, which 
legally established that Microsoft had been engaging in 
anticompetitive practices. The Findings mentioned Be and BeOS in 
several places. However, the only reference to the bootloader 
situation was found tucked in the middle of paragraph 49, and merely 
obfuscated the significance of the issue: Although the BeOS could 
run an Intel-compatible PC system without Windows, it is almost 
always loaded on a system along with Windows. What is more, when 
these dual- loaded PC systems are turned on, Windows automatically 
boots; the user must then take affirmative steps to invoke the BeOS. 
While this scheme allows the BeOS to occupy a niche in the market, 
it does not place the product on a trajectory to replace Windows on 
a significant number of PCs. Despite the convoluted summary, Be's 
stock price skyrocketed over the next few days as a result of the 
BeOS mentions in Jackson's findings, eclipsing even RHAT and APPL in 
trading volume. But that blip on the radar did nothing to mitigate 
the real issue the greatest opportunity Be had ever had to inform 
the government and the public of this stunningly obnoxious example 
of anticompetitive behavior one that, in my opinion, eclipses the 
browser integration issue had come and gone, leaving Be no closer to 
securing those all-important bundling deals with the world's largest 
PC hardware vendors. The burning question, of course, is why Boies 
and Klein didn't want Gass,e to testify on the bootloader issue, 
especially when it could have substantially helped their case? The 
answer provided to Gass,e was that the case was by then already too 
well established. Including the bootloader issue would have meant 
rewriting many of the arguments and calling in a new collection of 
witnesses. In other words, it wasn't convenient for the U.S. 
government to get to the meat of the matter. It would have been too 
much of a hassle to address Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior in 
its purest form. In addition, no PC OEM was willing to testify on 
bootloader issues. And why would they? The threat of losing favor 
with Microsoft easily would have outweighed any potential benefit 
from being able to preload the unproven Be operating system 
alongside Windows on their machines. Finally, Be didn't have the 
brand recognition that Netscape did; Netscape made for a much better 
poster child. *Boies, by the way, did not even have e-mail as of 
August 2000 the highest technology case in the land was prosecuted 
by a man who could fairly be described as technologically 
illiterate.
    Controlling the Hardware Landscape
    One might wonder, as I did, why Be did not file separate suit on 
this issue. It would seem that Be's case would be extremely strong, 
especially with the precedent and backing of the Findings of Fact. 
In winning such a suit, Be would stand to make a pile of quick cash 
and to greatly extend their public visibility. Oh, and they might 
just win the opportunity to ship alongside Windows on consumer 
computer hardware. But Be did not sue Microsoft, and as far as I can 
tell, is not currently in the process of suing Microsoft. Why not? 
First of all, a lawsuit against Microsoft would be incredibly 
expensive and time consuming. Unfortunately, Be cannot currently 
afford either the time or the money, not to mention the distraction 
of a major lawsuit. But couldn't Be have filed suit in early 2000, 
in the window that opened immediately after the Findings of Fact 
were released? Yes, answers Gass,e, but Be was waiting to see what 
the court's recommended remedy would be. After all, it seemed likely 
at the time that Microsoft would be forced to change many of its 
business practices. Why should Be have sued to accomplish what it 
looked like the government was going to do anyway? So here we are in 
2001, and guess what? It's still not possible to purchase a dual-
boot Win/Linux machine. Doesn't that seem kind of odd? With all of 
the hype Linux has gotten, and with the technical simplicity of 
shipping dual-boot machines, not a single PC OEM is shipping such a 
beast. The technology marketplace is glutted with options. Vendors 
use even the smallest opportunities to trumpet their differentiating 
factors. Linux is free. And yet there are no commercially available 
dual-boot machines on the market. Not one. The silence of the 
marketplace speaks volumes. There is no other way to explain this 
phenomenon other than as a repercussion of the confidential Windows 
License under which every hardware vendor must do business. Last 
time I checked, x86 computer hardware is supposed to be operating 
system agnostic. My System Commander operator's manual tells me 
there are more than 80 known operating systems capable of being 
booted on x86 hardware (most of them obscure, of course). And yet, 
Microsoft has managed to massively influence the course of the 
supposedly OS-neutral hardware marketplace. Compaq, Dell, Hitachi, 
and all the rest of them work under Microsoft's terms and 
conditions. Microsoft has shaped and controlled the hardware 
landscape as much as they have shaped and controlled the software 
landscape. They're getting away with it. They slipped through the 
DOJ trial without the bootloader issue becoming the thorn it should 
have. As far as I know, the terms of the Windows OEM License have 
not changed. The recommended legal remedies against Microsoft have 
largely been stricken, and Microsoft is currently deflecting 
attention from the real issues by agreeing to remove some icons from 
the XP desktop (as if that mattered in contrast to the larger issues 
at stake). Klein and Boies helped to prevent the bootloader issue 
from becoming a central component of the DOJ's case. And we were 
never the wiser. As a result of all this, Be's business may have 
suffered in ways that will never be possible to measure. I'd go as 
far as to suggest that successful bundling arrangements with large 
PC vendors could easily have made the difference between the obscure 
BeOS of today and what could have been a popular, user-friendly and 
profitable alternative to Windows for the masses. On the other hand, 
Be may have failed to gain mass acceptance even with major vendor 
bundling deals. But we would have had the opportunity to 
``experience what a truly competitive situation might be 
like.'' In any case, the miscarriage of justice was absolute. 
What we know for sure is that Microsoft treated the PC hardware 
platform as if it

[[Page 27753]]

owned it, and thus hurt consumers, software developers, PC OEMs, OS 
competitors, and the industry in general. That's a layman's 
definition of abusing a monopoly. Jean Louis Gass,e, July 2000
    Postscript:
    My copy of the San Francisco Chronicle for August 17 contains an 
article on the Palm purchase and includes the following extremely 
interesting paragraph: Although it will cease operations, Be said 
that it will retain certain rights and assets, including its cash 
and cash equivalents $4.9 million as of June 30 and ``rights 
to...bring certain causes of action, including under antitrust 
laws.'' In other words, Be may yet opt to sue Microsoft, which 
could be a very interesting case to watch. Let's just hope the media 
figures out where the real antitrust issues are this time.



MTC-00026123

From: Margaret Sanchez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, US Dept of Justice
Re: Microsoft settlement
    I am writing regarding the persecution of Microsoft to let you 
know how I think and feel about this dastardly affair. I resent the 
government's implication that I am a helpless victim because I 
choose to buy a computer with Microsoft software already loaded. I 
resent the arrogance on the government's part thinking that it can 
decide what is to be on my computer. This is ridiculous. That is not 
the government's job. Your job is to protect the citizenry from 
events such as September 11. Why aren't you persecuting that whole 
affair more vigorously? Why aren't you going after Iran, Iraq? This 
is how you choose to spend taxpayer money by persecuting an American 
company? I cannot remember having instigated a complaint against 
Microsoft, nor do I recall any other individual doing so. This whole 
affair has been instigated by competitors who are unable to compete 
in the free market! Failed business should not be the ones to set 
the rules for the very markets in which they failed. The 
government's application of the corrupt and dangerous antitrust laws 
against successful businessmen is anti-American and can only result 
in greater corruption in our society as businessmen find it ever 
more necessary to kowtow to politicians. Microsoft and its owners 
have a right to the fruits of their labor--their 
property--and it is the government's job to protect this right 
not take it away. The government's actions are on principle anti-
American and unconstitutional. America is a land open to all who 
want to dream and work hard to see their dreams come true. If the 
government throttles success based on the envy and dishonesty of the 
few then there is no hope left in the world. The antitrust laws are 
fraudulent and should be repealed. And by the way I love Microsoft 
products and not having to load software and not having to pay for a 
browser!
    Sincerely,
    Margaret and Evencio Sanchez
    CC:Margaret Sanchez,Richard Winkler



MTC-00026124

From: Lemon, Michael A
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/26/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Please don't trust AOL,s word ! Aol is the evil one not 
Microsoft.AOL destructive software has personally caused me $700.00 
damage to my computer and software.
    I loaded a game and later found that AOL's software loaded with 
it.When i tried tried to remove it corrupted my software and locked 
up my computer.Like a worm virus it interlocked in my programs,when 
i tried to remove it it ripped parts of my programs
    apart. My harddrive,memory,audio card,modem had to be replaced.I 
had to upgrade to the new operating system and scrap the old one all 
because of AOL.Two other people at work have had the exact same 
thing happen.
    Microsoft provides an excellent product with extra features that 
help the customer.The computer tech told me to NEVER load anything 
with AOL on it.He said it innertwines itself like a virus into your 
computer. I believe that the Government should sue AOL for all the 
damage they have done.I am out $700.00. Michael



MTC-00026125

From: lherman
To: ``[email protected]''
Date: 1/26/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lawrence Herman
7 Seneca Drive ??Chappaqua, NY 10514 ? (914) 238-8565
Saturday, January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you to express my hope that you will see your way 
clear to expediting the settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. 
This case has seen more than three years of litigation, appeal, 
mediation and controversy. A fair and functional settlement plan has 
been reached by the parties and accepted by the court. It's time to 
end this matter and let Microsoft get back to work. The plan itself 
would force Microsoft to alter its business practices in a manner 
that will encourage competition in the IT field. Its Windows systems 
will be made accessible to other software manufacturers'' 
software. New Windows systems will be developed specifically so as 
to open them up to exploitation by the company's competitors. An 
oversight committee will be established to make sure Microsoft no 
longer engages in anti-competitive practices. In brief the 
``old'' so-called predatory Microsoft will no longer 
exist. There is no present need to divide up this great and 
inventive company. And, there is no logical need to delay the 
implementation of this plan.
    Sincerely,
    Lawrence Herman



MTC-00026126

From: Paganini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
11340 Saddlewood Lane
Concord Township, OH 44077-8937
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Department of Justice and Microsoft have finally reached an 
agreement ending the three-year long antitrust case brought against 
Microsoft. I think this settlement is fair and should stand. The two 
parties fought it out, worked out an agreement, and it is not for 
people outside to second-guess these decisions. In my view, 
Microsoft has been chastened and has agreed to open up their company 
to competition. Microsoft has agreed to allow third party developers 
more of its copyrighted material to aid in development of third 
party programs; Microsoft has agreed to a three person technical 
committee to monitor future actions; 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. It seems to me 
that all this is more than fair to the competition and it is time we 
put this matter to rest.
    I urge you to give your support to this agreement.
    Sincerely, John Paganini



MTC-00026127

From: Richard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:06pm
Subject: Justice for MicroSoft
    MicroSoft is a cancer on the technological innovation machine. I 
am a Silicon Valley entrepeneur and have watched other companies 
develop new technologies only to see MicroSoft absorb it into its 
OS. Sure the consumer doesn't care, just like the citizen that buys 
stolen goods from murky sources doesn't care. The giant hairball 
from Redmond must be stopped before they kill the innovative spirit 
of the technology sector.



MTC-00026128

From: Marc (038) Karen Jacobson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:06pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement
    I am opposed to the current settlement as outlined currently. 
Microsoft is not a benign monopoly. They use their clout to drive 
out competition. The control of the source code for their operating 
system, and the rules and regulations in place to developers, gives 
Microsoft prior knowledge of cutting edge technology whic they can 
and do use to curtail competition. I strongly belive Microsoft must 
be punished along the outline originally set forth by Judge Jackson.
    Sincerely,
    Marc S Jacobson
    Whittier, California



MTC-00026129

From: Rodney M. Jokerst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 27754]]

    I truly fear the day when I will have to pay MICROSOFT a monthly 
subscription just to use the internet. The way things are going now, 
all internet providers will soon require you to use microsoft 
products just to log in. Once they own the internet it will be 
practically impossible for anyone to take it back. I use microsoft 
products only when I absolutely have to. The primary reason that 
this is required is because they have closed standards so noone can 
create a word processor that reads word file correctly for example. 
If they were made to publish in FULL the specs for applications such 
as Microsoft Office I would have no reason to complain. I have no 
problem with the whole world standardizing on one document format. I 
do have a problem with the company not allowing anyone to compete 
with them by creating a competing product that uses this document 
format. The internet was created with open standars so that business 
with different interests could create compatible products yet still 
compete with eachother. It is painfully obvious that Microsoft has a 
stanglehold monopoly in the operating systems business. Please do 
SOMETHING about it...please? I belive that forcing them to open up 
their API's would be the best solution to this problem...allowing 
competitors to at least have a fair chance to create a competent 
product.
    thanks
    rod



MTC-00026130

From: Colin Pritchard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement against Microsoft is a bad idea. It is 
nowhere near enough of a penalty for the wrongs they have committed 
against their competitors. A stiffer series of penalties must be 
implemented to insure a healthy, competitive environment for all.



MTC-00026131

From: Craig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    Though I am a huge believer in free markets, I do not believe 
the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) is a the best solution. Microsoft 
is a wonderful company staffed by wonderful people, but they are 
guilty of some very grave anti-competitive violations. Moreover, the 
PFJ does not provide an effective enforcement mechanism for its 
remedies



MTC-00026132

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This has gone on long enough. The lawyers are the only people 
who stand to benefit from continuance of this suit. There will be no 
consumer benefit and possible consumer and economic harm to letting 
this continue.
    Stop the insanity! Let's get on with our lives.



MTC-00026133

From: Barbara L Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:10pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Atty. General Ashcroft: I am writing to protest any further 
litigation against Microsoft. The settlement offered is more than 
fair and the time and moneys of the AGO's office is better spent on 
REAL problems that affect the lives of the American peoples.
    Barbara Black--14515 Granite Valley, #332C-Sun CIty 
West, AZ 85375



MTC-00026134

From: Shelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Senators Specter and Santorum,
    I am writing today to voice my opinion on the Microsoft 
antitrust case. This case has been going on far too long and further 
litigation will only stall our economy and the IT industry, which is 
clearly the last thing we need. The Federal Government should focus 
their efforts to more pertinent matters. My husband worked in the 
steel industry for 37 years, expecting to still be working. His 
company closed , he was forced into retirement and now is in 
jeopardy of losing his pension. We don't know what we are going to 
do. We were looking to the government for help. Shouldn't the 
government try to help companies instead of trying to destroy them? 
Microsoft has done more for this economy in the last decade than 
anyone or anything else. I urge you to please do your best to put a 
stop to any further litigation and advance the current settlement 
that is in place. Don't let happen to Microsoft what happened to the 
steel industry. This settlement will benefit the economy and the 
technology industry. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Michelle Salem Petroci



MTC-00026135

From: Arthur Laube
To: Microsoft ATR,Paul
Date: 1/26/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a user of MS Windows and with no other vested interest I 
believe Microsoft did us--the users- a great service in the way 
they offered their products from their inception until present. We 
needed a turnkey computer. Press the button and go--and we came 
very close to getting that only because of the way MS bundled their 
products with the major supplier of computer hardware. The industry 
would be many years back if the Justice Department could have 
prevented MS from their initial marketing efforts. Now that MS is 
successful their competitors, managed by cry-babies, are screaming 
foul. Pfooie on them. I bought Netscape, but after several versions 
I gave up on them and went to MS Explorer and Outlook Express. As 
for AOL--I was online early with them--they are such a 
farce. I left them years ago. This is a very huge, immature 
market--let the market determine the winner and losers. No one 
is going to monopolize this market. Not ever. Look at the grand old 
man--Big Blue. At one time such a threat that the Justice 
Department took them on--but eventually dropped the suit. Their 
customers took care of their arrogance. They almost went belly-
up--but they brought in a marketing man--and he asked 
their customers a question that Big Blue had never thought of, 
``What can we do for you? What is it you want from us?'' 
The Justice Department would never have resolved the IBM problem of 
size. But their own customers chastised them until they reformed. 
The Justice Department started this MS mess--they should step 
in and settle it--and make sure that the states settle.
    Arthur H. Laube 23 Clover Drive Chapel Hill, NC. 27514 
919-967-5484



MTC-00026136

From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Robert Lemert
    5154 Merrill
    Riverside, CA 92504



MTC-00026137

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:12pm
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.

[[Page 27755]]

    Sincerely,
    Lawrence D. Meshkin
    950 N. Balsam Circle
    Wasilla, AK 99654-5552



MTC-00026138

From: Ruth Vanderpool
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am sure that you have read many e-mails complaining about the 
unethical behavior of Microsoft and while I believe that is true I 
thought it might scare you into thinking correcting Microsoft's 
behavior might in fact just be the revenge of a few. Granted the 
government is allowed to charge for past wrongs and thereby provide 
a financial incentive to correct the behavior, but I believe 
Microsoft is guilty of something much more concrete that is not in 
need of retribution but correction. This being monopolistic 
behavior. Having heard a mixture of these ideas the courts have come 
up with a settlement, but this settlement does little to correct the 
negative behavior that Microsoft is able to do in our economy.
    If you recall from basic economic, monopolies operating in a 
free market are both inefficient and wasteful. It has been shown 
that while Microsoft is not a pure monopoly it does control a large 
enough percentage of the market to act that way. The only way of 
changing this is to allow entry into the market by other 
competitors, this settlement does not encourage that. In fact the 
language seems to do little more then provide Microsoft with 
loopholes in which to escape from. I don't have the time to point 
out each of these cases but a lot of my views have been reflected in 
the group letter on-line at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html. 
Thank you for listening and I hope this will encourage you to create 
a stronger settlement that will be more effective.
    Ruth Vanderpool
    14220 Pacific Ave S Apt L
    Tacoma Wa. 98444



MTC-00026139

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Marie H. Meshkin
    950 N. Balsam Circle
    Wasilla, AK 99654-5552



MTC-00026140

From: MichaelRobinett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:16pm
Subject: MICROSOFT CASE
    1. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THE REASON FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S 
ORIGINAL ACTIONS AGAINST MICROSOFT WERE PRIMARILY FOR THE INTERESTS 
OF ``CONSUMER PROTECTION'' AND I CAN APPRECIATE THE INTENT 
OF THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING THE VARIOUS STATES AND THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT IN THAT RESPECT.
    2. THE GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS ON PROHIBITED CONDUCT IN SECTION 
111. APPEAR TO BE FAIR MINDED AND CERTAINLY IN THE SPIRIT OF THE 
ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE SHERMAN ACT, NOTING THAT NOTHING IN THE 
PROVISIONS PROHIBIT MICROSOFT FROM PROTECTING ITS OWN INTELLECTUAL 
AND BUSINES PROPERTIES.
    3. FAIR PRICING STRUCTURES SEEM TO BE A LEGITIMATE AREA OF 
CONCERN UNDER ANY SHERMAN ACT PROCEEDING.
    4. IT SEEMS HOWEVER THAT MICROSOFT HAS CONSISTENTLY ALLOWED END 
USER ACCESS TO BOTH MICROSOFT AND NON-MICROSOFT MIDDLEWARE AND 
PROGRAMS FOR BOTH SIMPLE MODIFICATIONS OR REMOVAL SINCE THE 3.1 
WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM TO THE PRESENT. SO IT SEEMS THE 
REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION H STARTING WITH THE WINDOWS XP RELEASE ARE A 
SOMEWHAT MOOT POINT. WHY REQUIRE MICROSOFT TO DO SOMETHING THEY'VE 
BEEN DOING SINCE WINDOWS 3.1 THROUGH MILLENIUM?
    5. UNDER SECTION H.3., MICROSOFT HAS CONSISTENLY ALLOWED NON-
MICROSOFT PRODUCTS TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN CONFIGURATION OF WINDOW 
& ICON DISPLAY, SOMETIMES MUCH TO MY CHAGRIN WHEN THE NON-
MICROSOFT PRODUCTS INSISTED ON JUMPING ON TOP OF THE NORMAL 
OPERATING SYSTEM DISPLAYS, OR ALLOWING OUTSIDE INTRUDER ACCESS TO 
THE PROGRAMS THEMSELVES IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO OBSTRUCT THE CONTENT 
OF WHAT THE END USER WAS ATTEMPTING TO PRODUCE, OR BLOCK PRODUCTION 
OF DOCUMENTS ALTOGETHER. IN SUCH CASES I PERSONALLY SWITCHED BACK TO 
THE MIDDLEWARE NATIVE TO THE MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM. IN MY OWN 
OPINION, MOST MICROSOFT PRODUCTS ARE ENGINEERED OR CRAFTED IN SUCH A 
MANNER TO PROTECT BOTH THE OPERATING SYSTEM ITSELF, AND THE END 
USER'S ACTIVITIES, WITH THE INTENTION OF CREATING A LOYAL CUSTOMER 
BASE, AND ULTIMATELY SELLING MORE PRODUCTS. IT SEEMS THE BASIC 
UNDERLYING ECONOMIC MOTIVE IS BOTH NON-MONOPOLISTIC IN NATURE, AND 
TO THE BENEFIT OF THE END USER AS CONSUMER.
    6. IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY, THE ORIGINAL ANTI-TRUST 
FILINGS COINCIDED WITH THE FREE RELEASE OF THE INTERNET EXPLORER 
BROWSER, WHICH WAS INTERPRETED BY THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING THE 
VARIOUS STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS BEING MONOPOLISTIC IN 
NATURE AND UNDERCUTTING COMPETITORS. FROM THE END USER OR CONSUMER 
STANDPOINT HOWEVER, IT HAD THE OPPOSITE EFFECT. IT WAS THE FIRST 
SIMPLE AND ACCESSILBE RELEASE OF HTML SOURCE CODE IN MY EXPERIENCE 
AND WAS THE MODERN EQUIVALENT OF THE FIRST RELEASE OF THE GUTENBERG 
PRINTING PRESS. WHILE COMPETITORS PRODUCTS ALLOWED VIEWING OF HTML 
SOURCE CODE, THEY WERE NOT AS EASILY USED IN PRODUCTION OF WEBPAGES, 
OR HTML FORMAT DOCUMENTS AS THE MICROSOFT PRODUCT WAS. WHILE THIS 
CERTAINLY IS NOT THE SAME AS RELEASING SOURCE CODE FOR COMMERCIALLY 
LICENSED PRODUCTS, WHICH THE GOVERMENT IS NOT REQUIRING, IT HAD THE 
EFFECT OF INCREASING THE FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION OF ALL KINDS IN 
THE MODERN SOCIETY OF THE INFORMATION AGE. FROM A PERSONAL 
PERSPECTIVE, THE MAIN EFFECT, IF NOT THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE 
GOVERNMENT'S CASE AGAINST MICROSOFT, WAS TO BASICALLY BLOCK THIS 
FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION ITSELF. MICROSOFT HAD ALLOWED WIDESPREAD 
ACCESS TO BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INFORMATION SOURCES THROUGH ITS 
PRODUCTS, AND HAD ``DEMOCRATIZED'' THE PRODUCTION OF 
INFORMATION ITSELF, ALLOWING MULTIPLE VIEWPOINTS TO EASILY BE 
PUBLISHED VIA THE INTERNET. THE COURSE OF EVENTS SINCE THE 
GOVERNMENT'S ORIGINAL ANTI-TRUST ACT FILINGS HAS SEEN A SERIOUS 
REDUCTION IN THE FLOW OF INFORMATION OF ALL TYPES, AND SERIOUS 
IMPEDIMENTS TO BOTH THE PRODUCTION AND PUBLICATION OF THE SAME. 
INSTEAD OF INCREASING THE FLOW OF INFORMATION IN A FREE SOCIETY, THE 
SAME TIME PERIOD HAS SEEN DEVELOPMENTS OF NEW GOVERNMENT 
TECHNOLOGIES MEANT TO DO EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. IN FACT IT'S GETTING 
TO THE POINT WHERE ONE IS NOT SURE THEY'RE ACTUALLY GETTING A 
MICROSOFT PRODUCT SOMETIMES, OR SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN ENGINEERED 
BY ANOTHER BRANCH OF THE PLAINTIFF'S IN THE SUIT, TO DISGUISE ITSELF 
AS ONE, WHILE PLACING ANOTHER VERSION OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 
FROM SECTION 7 ON THE HOME OR OFFICE COMPUTERS OF THE END USERS OR 
CONSUMERS.
    (7. Microsoft shall provide the TC with a permanent office, 
telephone, and other office support facilities at Microsoft's 
corporate campus in Redmond, Washington. Microsoft shall also, upon 
reasonable advance notice from the TC, provide the TC with 
reasonable

[[Page 27756]]

access to available office space, telephone, and other office 
support facilities at any other Microsoft facility identified by the 
TC.)
    IN A SENSE, THE END USER OR CONSUMER IS BEING SUBJECTED TO THE 
SAME TYPE OF TECHNICAL OVERSIGHT BY ``COUNTERFEIT'' 
PROGRAMS WHICH HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN CLEVERLY ALTERED BY THE 
``PLAINTIFF'S'' THEMSELVES IN THE SENSE THAT OTHER 
BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT HAVE REQUIRED BOTH THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
INDUSTRY AND ISP PROVIDERS TO PROVIDE INCREASED SURVEILLANCE 
CAPACITY. IN A TWO PARTY POLITICAL SYSTEM, THAT CAN SOMETIMES HAVE 
THE UNUSUAL EFFECT OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS IN CONTROL OF SEVERAL 
TRILLION DOLLARS IN GOVERMENT FUNDS AND RESOURCES, ACTUALLY ACTING 
IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT THEMSELVES FOR FOUR YEAR PERIODS. IN 
CONCLUSION, IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT MICROSOFT HAS ACTED IN A MANNER 
DETRIMENTAL TO THE END USERS OR CONSUMERS THEMSELVES. IF ANYTHING, 
IT ACTED IN A MANNER WHICH ALLOWED END USERS INCREASED ACCESS TO 
POLITICAL INFORMATION, BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES, AND PERSONAL 
EXPRESSION.
    RESPECTFULLY,
    MICHAEL ROBINETT



MTC-00026141

From: David Ragaini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:18pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern;
    I find it tragically ironic that, at the same time the American 
government is waging war against an unspeakable evil--radical 
Islamic terrorists, it is seeking to undermine one of the great 
forces for good the world has ever seen: the Microsoft Corporation. 
Microsoft has benefited millions upon millions of people in its 27 
years of existence. It has brought the world and knowledge of it to 
their doorstep. And it has done this without resorting to force; 
indeed, any privately owned company must accede to the demands of 
the marketplace (Only government-owned monopolies have the power to 
force their product upon the populace).
    I strongly urge that the government's anti-trust case against 
Microsoft be dropped. It would be a monstrous miscarriage of justice 
for such a phenomenal agent for good to be punished solely BECAUSE 
it is good. Microsoft's products have fairly and honestly beaten 
those of its competitors. The force of our government must be used 
to fight evil, as it is now doing in Afghanistan; it must never be 
used to shackle honest, beneficial companies like Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    David Ragaini
    264 Eagleton Estates Blvd.
    Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418



MTC-00026142

From: PC (pcsbs)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly support the acceptance of the current settlement 
between the DOJ and Microsoft. The DOJ and many states'' 
Attorney General have, in my opinion, been unfair and extreme in 
their targeting of Microsoft in pursuit of political goals. I work 
in the technology industry. I use products of Microsoft's 
competitors as well as Microsoft. I will use the product that I feel 
is the best for what I want to accomplish. Microsoft has been 
innovative with it's products and has marketed them with business 
savvy. It is unfair to allow it's whining competitors to use the 
government to stymie competition and artificially alter the effects 
of the free market. The settlement currently being considered is FAR 
MORE than fair in righting any technical errors made on the part of 
Microsoft. For the sake of the US economy and the welfare of 
innovation and our economic viability and sovereignty in the world, 
this harassment must stop.
    Regards,
    PC
    Phil Cagle
    Irvine, California



MTC-00026143

From: Dennis Austin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    This email is to express my approval for the proposed settlement 
of the Microsoft anti-trust action. The settlement has been agreed 
to by Microsoft, the Department of Justice, and nine of the states 
pursuing a case. It is important that this settlement be approved 
and the energies of all involved moved on to new challenges.
    --Dennis Austin (private citizen)



MTC-00026144

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Bailey Norfleet
    3825 Old Dover Road N
    Woodlawn, TN 37191-9046



MTC-00026145

From: J. Haugh
To: microsoft settlement
Date: 1/26/02 2:30pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    This caving into the several states involved in the microsoft 
dispute will only discourage new entrepreneures. Leave microsoft 
alone, I can only commend him, Bill Gates, for his genius.
    J.M.S.Haugh



MTC-00026146

From: Rick Wong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom who may concern,
    I would like to express my opposition of the proposed Microsoft 
Antitrust Settlement in its current form. Based on previous court 
rulings, it clear that Microsoft had violated antitrust laws and has 
been continuing to do so. The current proposed settlement not only 
fails to punish Microsoft's wrongdoing, but also provides Microsoft 
further its monopoly and antitrust practice. I wish the court would 
carefully review the case and place put a penalty that is fair for 
the consumers and industry suffered by the Microsoft monopoly 
practice.
    Sincerely,
    Rick K. Wong
    California



MTC-00026147

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: The Honourable Renata B. Hesse:
Judge of the Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
[email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam Justice Hesse,
    I am not pleased with the settlement proposed between the DOJ 
and Microsoft. Microsoft claims that the consumer was not harmed by 
their actions. I disagree. At one time I had a choice about the 
Operating System that came with my computer. I also could choose the 
Word Processor, Spreadsheet and Database applications. I chose to 
use IBM's OS/2 operating system and Lotus SmartSuite for OS/2. 
Because of Microsoft's monopolistic practices, my choices have been, 
for all practical purposes, been reduced to Microsoft OS's and 
Microsoft applications (Microsoft Office). Most major OEM's preload 
these on any new computer that I buy. I will have to pay extra to 
get something else. Because of Microsoft's monopolistic practices, 
my investments of time and money in OS/2 based products have been 
rendered to zero value---a loss that has been unfairly placed 
upon me.
    As shown in the ``Findings of Fact'', Sections 115 
thru 132, ``In sum, from 1994 to 1997 Microsoft consistently 
pressured IBM to reduce its support for software products that 
competed with Microsoft's offerings, and it used its monopoly power 
in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems to punish 
IBM for its refusal to cooperate. Whereas, in the case of Netscape, 
Microsoft tried to induce a company to move its business away from 
offering software that

[[Page 27757]]

could weaken the applications barrier to entry, Microsoft's primary 
concern with IBM was to reduce the firm's support for software 
products that competed directly with Microsoft's most profitable 
products, namely Windows and Office''. I and many others had 
chosen to use OS/2 and Lotus SmartSuite for OS/2. We did this for 
very good reasons, especially OS/2's technically superior design. 
(See Note at end of letter). Not only did Microsoft cause IBM to 
cease marketing these products, Microsoft caused IBM to cease using 
these products in their own offices. How can you sell a product that 
you don't use yourself? (See ``Findings of Fact'', Sec. 
118: ``Specifically, the PC Company would receive an $8 
reduction in the per-copy royalty for Windows 95 if it mentioned no 
other operating systems in advertisements for IBM PCs, adopted 
Windows 95 as the standard operating system for its employees, and 
ensured that it was shipping Windows 95 pre-installed on at least 
fifty percent of its PCs two months after the release of Windows 
95''. The ``Findings of Facts'', Sec. 116 tells us 
``When IBM refused to abate the promotion of those of its own 
products that competed with Windows and Office, Microsoft punished 
the IBM PC Company with higher prices, a late license for Windows 
95, and the withholding of technical and marketing support''.
    I do not think a fair settlement can be reached until Microsoft 
makes right the harm done to me and many others. Today, we have to 
accept Microsoft's poor quality products. Where is Word Perfect and 
Lotus SmartSuite today? Microsoft has caused to exist an environment 
in which they control the profitability of competing products. If a 
company can't get their product pre-installed on a new computer, it 
can't afford to develop it. And Microsoft makes sure that it's 
products run better on it's operating systems by denying competitors 
information (API's) necessary to build competitive products. 
Recently there has come forth increased concern that the proposed 
settlement contained many loopholes and exceptions. Serious 
questions have been raised about the scope, enforceability and 
effectiveness of the proposed settlement. Please reconsider the 
current settlement terms so that competitors have a more even 
playing field in which to compete with Microsoft. This is the only 
way that I, as a consumer, can choose what software and operating 
systems are best for me without having to be, at the very least, 
penalized by much higher costs and being worried abnormally about 
the survivability of products that compete with Microsoft.
    Note concerning the design of OS/2 versus Windows: From an 
article entitled ``The Big Blue-Redmond Connection'' by 
Diane Gartner in IQ Newsletter--Issue #7, January 2000 
found at: http://209.0.210.17/IQN/7-2000jan/iqn7-Blue-
Redmond--Connexion.html ``Big Blue's OS/2 team had 
discovered that the Microsoft approach of placing the Graphic Device 
Interface (GDI) plus the Graphic User Interface (GUI) into the 
kernal was a disastrous mistake that led to instability: any little 
application ``bug'' or glitch that would affect the 
interface also could affect the underlying OS and bring it down to a 
crash. Microsoft was informed of this danger by IBM, but insisted 
that their approach gave an important benefit of speed by allowing 
applications to access the kernal directly--yes, even if it 
were at the cost of stability. The IBM programmers maintained that 
such instability was needless, and the crash could be easily 
prevented; their solution was to separate and protect the OS/2 
kernal, without having to sacrifice any speed whatsoever. In fact, 
IBM independently made that very simple but crucial design 
improvement, among other innovations, which together have lent 
stability as well as power to OS/2 ever since the days of version 
1.30''. ``But how did Microsoft react? For reasons we may 
never be able to fathom, they balked at the very notion of 
correcting the design error. Whether it was due to obstinacy, vanity 
or perhaps envy toward IBM's OS/2 programmers, Microsoft's decision 
was to leave the programming flaw where it was, and ultimately, to 
leave the team''. ``Version numbering aside, the changes 
made by Microsoft to NT did not include the architectural 
improvements made by IBM to OS/2. Instead of removing the GDI and 
GUI from the kernal to keep it clean ``n'' lean like OS/
2's, Microsoft actually added more code to the kernal of NT. The 
ever-increasing bloat has not done NT a bit of good. Instability 
still occurs today in NT versions 3.5x and 4.x and presumably in 
Windows 2000. The design flaw is now often referred to as a Ring 0 
crash, because that spot is where the GDI and GUI are intertwined in 
NT. Many application programming errors are made in that area 
because Microsoft neglects to provide third-party developers with 
essential information on how to avoid the problem''.
    Sincerely,
    James P. Stein
    324 Mt. Royal Blvd.
    Pittsburgh, PA 15223-1220
    Phone: 412-781-3467



MTC-00026148

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:33pm
Subject: settlement Enough already.
    Where have you been while Enron was running amuck? But then they 
made major political contributions while Microsoft was just 
inventing a better mousetrap.



MTC-00026149

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop this case from going further there is nothing to be 
gained, the Government on behalf of the Public made fair and 
equitable settlement. And should be accepted by all States. The Nine 
States holding should not supersede the will of the 41 States that 
have accepted the settlement. The majority deserves to be served. IF 
THIS GOES FURTHER THE BATTLE MAY BE WON BUT THE WAR WILL BE LOST! 
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ THIS! Joseph Paoletti



MTC-00026151

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The sooner this is settled the better. Let all those DOJ lawyers 
work on something more important: Enron & Arthur Anderson.



MTC-00026152

From: Joe Hartmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft case comments
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am a retired aerospace engineer with a 27 year old daughter 
and a 20 year old son living at home. Both of my children are heavy 
computer users and we have 4 computers in our home. We use Microsoft 
and other programs and we have never felt being cheated or 
overpriced by any Microsoft products. I feel that Oracle, Sun 
Microsystems and AOL (who are monopolists themselves in certain 
areas) are jealous of Microsoft and their products that are better 
than theirs and are trying to hurt Microsoft any way they can. I 
also believe that Microsoft, more than any other company, helped the 
U.S. economy become the world leader and do not understand why our 
government and especially the remaining 9 states want to cripple 
Microsoft and hurt our economy more. They are not protecting us 
consumers. I am very happy with all the free bundled programs from 
Microsoft that I, as a consumer, would have to pay a lot of money 
for. In my opinion, they are hurting us. Please settle this case 
favorably for us consumers and Microsoft.



MTC-00026153

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The time has come for the Justice Department to end it's 
expensive and damaging legal action against Microsoft which is not 
against just one company, but rather an entire industry. The action 
taken earlier was justified but it has served it's purpose. Further 
delay is not justified and will serve only to injure those many 
medium and smaller companies who depend upon Microsoft products. 
Please complete this legal action for the benefit of all.
    Lewis B. Stuart



MTC-00026154

From: Judah Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    Bad iDEA!



MTC-00026155

From: Bill Bondurant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:40pm
Subject: No subject was specified.
    I am an 82 year old graduate from Northeast Missouri State 
University(1940)Now Truman State University located in Kirksville, 
Missouri. My major was Economics and I remember well studying about 
Anti-Trust laws. I cannot believe what the current administration is 
trying to do in the case of Microsofts

[[Page 27758]]

violation of the Anti-Trust laws. It is very apparent to most 
everyone I talk to that people realize what Microsoft is trying to 
do and that the Judge who determined that they are in violation of 
Anti-Trust laws of the United States was right. And the offer of 
Microsoft to furnish millions of refurbished computers loaded with 
Microsoft software is just a contiuance of their attempt to 
monopolize the computer software market. I have been using a 
computer for about six years, starting on an Apple II that my son 
gave me, but 6 months later purchased an Apple Peforma and a year 
ago moved up to an Apple iMac. I realize that 95 percent of 
computers use Microsoft programs but that is no reason to allow them 
monopolize the market in violation of the law.
    Sincerely, Bill Bondurant, 1709 South Lewis, Kirksville, MO 
63501



MTC-00026156

From: Shelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Senator Santorum,
    I am writing to let you know my views on the Microsoft 
settlement. First and foremost, this case has been in litigation for 
far too many years now. Secondly, this lawsuit should not have 
concerned the federal government, since no laws have been broken. 
Settlements have been reached in various states, all of which have 
involved appropriate concessions, including more information sharing 
and changes in Microsoft's business practices. I have firsthand 
experience with big business. I previously worked in the steel 
industry, and due to government intervention and regulation, I 
permanently lost the only job I knew. I wish the lawmakers would try 
to understand what that is like. Pennsylvania's steel industry will 
never be the same and it's too late to change that. I urge you to 
please do your best to see that this does not happen to Microsoft. 
Our nation's IT industry depends on companies such as Microsoft and 
our economy also depends on the IT industry. I strongly suggest that 
it is in the best interest of everyone to discontinue these lawsuits 
so our economy can return to a sense of normalcy. Thank you for your 
consideration in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    John J. Petroci Jr.



MTC-00026157

From: Geoffrey Feldman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If this settlement forces Microsoft to change their business 
practice further than they have, then the consumer will suffer and I 
will suffer. This case should never have been tried, never admitted 
to court and never gone as far as it has. It has harmed a company 
and by extension has harmed my software development business. I am 
not paid by Microsoft but my customers purchase products from them. 
I have already been harmed by the absurd and groundless pursuit by 
the Clinton Justice department of this important American asset. I 
do not believe that it is possible for any software company to be a 
monopoly since their product, computer software, is simply ideas in 
a form of speech logical enough to work in a computer. This pursuit 
of a software company, alleging monopoly, violates my freedom of 
speech as a computer programmer and harms me in the practice of my 
consulting business. Please, do not supress the honest and 
aggressive competition to make life easier for Microsofts 
competitors who arguably fail through lack of competence and not 
lack of opportunity. Impose the most minimal penalty possible on 
Microsoft and get this farce over with.
    Geoffrey Feldman
    1541 Middlesex St. #8
    Lowell, MA 01851
    617-429-8966



MTC-00026158

From: Benjamin Dixon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think Dan Kegel's petition says it best so I won't reiterate 
all that here. However I will say the Microsoft Settlement is 
ineffective and will ultimately allow Microsoft to run its business 
as it always has. Benjamin Dixon



MTC-00026159

From: Dan Derby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel I've been victimized by Microsoft's monopolistic 
practices, not only in paying more than a product is worth, but also 
in seeing the entire computer OS platform I use become ineffective. 
I purchased MS Office when it was only offered for the Mac (version 
3) and was satisfied with the product. However, after MS launched 
Windows, the next upgrade to Office (Version 4) didn't work as 
advertised, and interfered with Mac operating system--causing 
countless crashes (I believe MS Office Manager never worked and was 
never fixed). This sudden ``breaking'' of a product 
originally designed for the Mac but continued to work well on their 
new Windows OS, implies the company did it damage Apple. Beside 
defrauding me out of $600, the failure of this program suite to work 
properly on the Mac, I believe, drove the Mac out of the business 
and government environments. This loss of market caused my 
investment in Apple products to become less effective as well. I 
also believe Apple was unable to protest for fear of further losing 
MS productivity suite support. While I sincerely feel this is an 
obvious example of MS's unethical and probably illegal practices. 
I'm also convinced the proposed settlement gives MS a boost in the 
education market, again at Apples expense. I have a much simpler 
settlement: Enforce the government's policy of not allowing sole 
source purchases. Simply limit MS's total share of any one type of 
software suite (OS, Web browser, productivity apps, etc) to less 
than 50% of US government purchases. In fact the US government 
should never allow any company to control more than 50% of any 
commonly used software genre owned by the government. WHY AREN'T 
SOLE SOURCE RULES APPLIED TO MICROSOFT? CAN THE GOVERNMENT DEFEND IT 
PURCHASING PATTERNS in light of the court ruling?
    Dan Derby



MTC-00026160

From: Joyce Clarke
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 1/26/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the terms of the proposed Microsoft settlement. 
As far as I can tell it will change nothing. Microsoft will continue 
to have the monopoly's stranglehold on operating system, software 
and in many cases, hardware. Microsoft should be treated exactly as 
were ATT and IBM-- split into separate companies with none 
having control over or connection with the other.
    Joyce
    Joyce Clarke
    http://jc-clarke.usana.com



MTC-00026161

From: Bob Dunlap
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is ridiculous. Microsoft has done untold damage 
to many competitors with their predatory business practices. This 
has been proved in court. Their punishment should be more than a 
wrist slap. It should put them in a position where they can no 
longer conduct business in this unfair manner.
    Microsoft also has disregard for their customers. Since they 
have the only viable operating system, Windows, they can set the 
price where they want and provide little or no support after the 
product is in the marketplace. Look at how the prices of other 
elements of the PC have dropped drastically, while the price of 
Windows has stayed the same or increased. And if you have a computer 
of your own with Windows, you must be aware of the instability of 
the product. When you call Microsoft for help, they charge 
exhorbitant fees to resolve problems in their product. There is no 
warranty!
    Periodically, on their own schedule, and with no regard for the 
needs of their customers, Microsoft will provide an update for 
Windows via download from their website. This is fine for those of 
us who have internet access, but the quality of these updates is 
poor. I have tried installing them and seen my system stability go 
from bad to worse.
    In my view, Microsoft is an arrogant, greedy corporation. Their 
goal is to squash all competition so they don't have to provide 
their customers with excellent service. They have no regard for the 
law or for the courts. They need to receive a strong message that we 
won't tolerate this type of business conduct!
    Sincerely,
    Robert A Dunlap



MTC-00026162

From: Dan Derby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 27759]]

    I feel I've been victimized by Microsoft's monopolistic 
practices, not only in paying more than a product is worth, but also 
in seeing the entire computer OS platform I use become ineffective. 
I purchased MS Office when it was only offered for the Mac (version 
3) and was satisfied with the product. However, after MS launched 
Windows, the next upgrade to Office (Version 4) didn't work as 
advertised, and interfered with Mac operating system--causing 
countless crashes (I believe MS Office Manager never worked and was 
never fixed). This sudden ``breaking'' of a product 
originally designed for the Mac but continued to work well on their 
new Windows OS, implies the company did it damage Apple.
    Beside defrauding me out of $600, the failure of this program 
suite to work properly on the Mac, I believe, drove the Mac out of 
the business and government environments. This loss of market caused 
my investment in Apple products to become less effective as well. I 
also believe Apple was unable to protest for fear of further losing 
MS productivity suite support.
    While I sincerely feel this is an obvious example of MS's 
unethical and probably illegal practices. I'm also convinced the 
proposed settlement gives MS a boost in the education market, again 
at Apples expense. I have a much simpler settlement: Enforce the 
government's policy of not allowing sole source purchases. Simply 
limit MS's total share of any one type of software suite (OS, Web 
browser, productivity apps, etc) to less than 50% of US government 
purchases. In fact the US government should never allow any company 
to control more than 50% of any commonly used software genre owned 
by the government. WHY AREN'T SOLE SOURCE RULES APPLIED TO 
MICROSOFT? CAN THE GOVERNMENT DEFEND IT PURCHASING PATTERNS in light 
of the court ruling?
    Dan Derby



MTC-00026164

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly support the antitrust settlement between Microsoft, 
the DoJ and nine states. I believe that the terms of the settlement 
are reasonable and fair to all parties. It is time to move forward.
    Thank you.
    Tom Lohman
    4011 Winchester Loop
    Anchorage, Alaska 99507
    (907) 349-3229
    [email protected]



MTC-00026165

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop any more persecution of Microsoft. Enough is enough! 
Microsoft should not be disbanded. They product they provide is 
fantastic value for the price. They are not endangering the end user 
by bundling their software. If the consumer wants other products, 
they are free to buy them. Just because Microsoft is successful at 
what they do, they should not be penalized anymore than they already 
have. Let the competitors improve their products, that is the fair 
and American way to compete in today's world.
    Joanmarie Hofmann
    Wesley Chapel, Florida



MTC-00026166

From: Peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs
    The proposed settlement SUCKS!!!
    Pete Matuszewski
    New Orleans University Student



MTC-00026167

From: W. D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Hey Do-dos!
    Your job is to break up Microsoft!
    It is obvious that they only care about making piles of money 
for themselves. They care nothing about the LAW or fair competition.
    This proposed settlement does nothing to keep MicroSuck from 
anti-competitive behavior.
    The only thing Gates, Ballmer, etc. understand is a big fat 
stick.
    Break them up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



MTC-00026168

From: Benjamin Stanley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    B.



MTC-00026169

From: Roger Zimmerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:56pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am a computer professional who has used the products of many 
parties surrounding the Microsoft lawsuit (Sun, Netscape, IBM, and, 
of course Microsoft, among others) throughout my 20 year career. I 
believe the best conclusion to this matter would be for the federal 
and state governments to stop interfering in what is a perhaps 
America's greatest success story--our computer industry. At the 
very least, the U.S. government should honor the settlement it has 
offerred thus far, and should compel all of the states to do the 
same. Microsoft should be allowed to get on with its business of 
making good products which serve a dire need in the marketplace.
    I speak from a great deal of experience. I use computers in all 
aspects of my life, from my profession as a scientific programmer, 
in email communications with my friends and colleagues, and with my 
three daughters, whom I guide through the use of the internet and in 
a vast array of educational software. My wife has her own business 
for which the our home computer is her primary means of 
communication and research. In all of these pursuits, I have been 
exposed to a small slice of perhaps the richest and most empowering 
array of technologies the world has ever seen, or at least that have 
been made available to the masses.
    Many of these products are from Microsoft. By and large, I have 
found their software to be accessible, understandable, and stable. 
They get the job done, and their consistency of interfaces, relative 
ease of use, and inter-operability are a great boon to the novice 
computer users among my family and friends. But, many of the 
products my family and I use are not from Microsoft. Indeed, at 
eScription, I work in a small group of engineers which employs a 
network of 25 Linux-based (purchased from Red Hat) computers to do 
enormous amounts of computation and database management. We also 
communicate with our customers and adminstrative colleages on 
networks of primarily Microsoft-driven machines. These machines 
interact seemlessly thanks to software and hardware from countless 
American and international companies. From a consumer's perspective 
it is impossible to reconcile this panoply of offerrings with any 
characterization of ``monopoly''. There is virtually no 
barrier to obtaining software products from absolutely anyone who 
produces them. It insults my intelligence to have the government 
name me as a ``victim'' of this situation.
    The more important point, however, is not the impact of the case 
against Microsoft on consumers. It is its impact on producers. What 
kind of a country do we want to live in? Do we want success to be 
punished or rewarded? Do we want property rights to be protected or 
infringed? Do we want our corporations to run to the government if 
they see a better competitor achieving success by providing what 
consumers want? I submit that the answer to these questions is: we 
want freedom. The freedom to innovate, to succeed (and sometimes 
even fail), and yes, the freedom to make our own decisions about 
what we want to buy. The government can best do its job by 
protecting these freedoms.
    Let Microsoft be Microsoft!
    Sincerely,
    Roger S. Zimmerman 32 Hastings Street Wellesley, MA 02481 
[email protected] [email protected] 
(781)235-1939



MTC-00026170

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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

[[Page 27760]]

future, not only in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of 
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 Bracken
    1006 East 11th St.
    Lehigh Acres, FL 33972



MTC-00026171

From: Steve Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:06pm
Subject: sign it already
    Dear DOJ:
    Please put this to rest so we can all get back to business 
without any more damage being inflicted upon the US public and the 
US Economy! Not to mention the fact that this has had world-wide 
impact!
    Thanks.
    A Concerned Citizen & Computer Consultant
    (who does not necessarily care for Microsoft and its products)
    Steve Parker
    [email protected]



MTC-00026172

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:00pm
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,
    Gerald Kleppinger
    4219 N Elm
    Spokane, WA 99205-1459



MTC-00026173

From: Jason A. Tripp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am an independent software developer in Northeastern North 
Carolina, and I just wish to comment on the upcoming settlement 
proposed in the Microsoft vs. US DOJ antitrust case. I believe there 
are very many key points which your proposed settlement did not 
address, but I believe one of the MAIN points to be that your 
settlement does not prohibit Microsoft from unfairly modifying (or 
prohibiting via licensing restrictions) programs based on the 
Windows API so that they will not run on non-Microsoft operating 
systems. This type of restrictive programming would force companies 
to do multiple ports of their software, a costly and time-consuming 
process, in order to get their software to run on multiple (and 
Microsoft-competitive) operating systems. The wording of the 
settlement should be changed to prohibit Microsoft from stopping 
programs based on the Windows API from running on operating systems 
other than Windows. After all, in my opinion most people use Windows 
just because there's so much software written for it; and that 
software, because of Microsoft's unfair business practices and 
licensing restrictions, will not run on other OS's. Microsoft would 
find itself faced with much stiffer (and more successful) 
competition if it could not unfairly restrict companies which are 
designing Windows API-based software in this way.
    Sincerely,
    Mr. Jason A. Tripp
    Independent Software Developer
    Edenton, NC
    [email protected]



MTC-00026174

From: jovitoIII
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We feel it is past time to resolve this issue. We believe the 
settlement if reasonable and fair to all parties involved. The 
country needs to get past this and it time to be settled.
    Thank you
    Joe & Vickie Bellotti



MTC-00026175

From: Herman Kling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3'07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Herman Kling_
9 Jolly Roger
WayWaretown, New Jersey 08758
Fax:
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write you concerning the recent Microsoft settlement, and the 
fact that it may be delayed even further than it already has been. 
After three years of negotiations, it seems ridiculous to hold back 
this agreement. Not only was this a well thought out procedure, but 
it was also well monitored.
    Why waste our precious resources fighting a battle that has 
already been won. The more we delay the process the more we hold 
back our technology industry. This agreement was made in the 
interest of all parties involved. Microsoft will share information 
about the internal workings of Windows, and will be monitored by a 
government oversight committee. Let us allow the terms to work for 
themselves, and let our IT sector get back to work.
    I urge you to support that no more action be taken against this 
settlement. We need to get our technology industry back on track, 
and not hold them up any longer.
    Sincerely,
Herman Kling_
Fax:
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write you concerning the recent Microsoft settlement, and the 
fact that it may be delayed even further than it already has been. 
After three years of negotiations, it seems ridiculous to hold back 
this agreement. Not only was this a well thought out procedure, but 
it was also well monitored.
    Why waste our precious resources fighting a battle that has 
already been won. The more we delay the process the more we hold 
back our technology industry. This agreement was made in the 
interest of all parties involved. Microsoft will share information 
about the internal workings of Windows, and will be monitored by a 
government oversight committee. Let us allow the terms to work for 
themselves, and let our IT sector get back to work.
    I urge you to support that no more action be taken against this 
settlement. We need to get our technology industry back on track, 
and not hold them up any longer.
    Sincerely,
Herman Kling_
9 Jolly Roger Way
Waretown, New Jersey 08758
Fax:
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write you concerning the recent Microsoft settlement, and the 
fact that it may be delayed even further than it already has been. 
After three years of negotiations, it seems ridiculous to hold back 
this agreement. Not only was this a well thought out procedure, but 
it was also well monitored.
    Why waste our precious resources fighting a battle that has 
already been won. The more we delay the process the more we hold 
back our technology industry. This agreement was made in the 
interest of all parties involved. Microsoft will share information 
about the internal workings of Windows, and will be monitored by a 
government oversight committee. Let us allow the terms to work for 
themselves, and let our IT sector get back to work. I urge you to 
support that no more action be taken against this settlement. We 
need to get our technology industry back on track, and not hold them 
up any longer.
    Sincerely,
    Herman Kling_
    9 Jolly Roger WayWaretown, New Jersey 08758
    Fax:
    January 7, 2002
    Attorney General John AshcroftUS Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

[[Page 27761]]

Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write you concerning the recent Microsoft settlement, and the 
fact that it may be delayed even further than it already has been. 
After three years of negotiations, it seems ridiculous to hold back 
this agreement. Not only was this a well thought out procedure, but 
it was also well monitored.
    Why waste our precious resources fighting a battle that has 
already been won. The more we delay the process the more we hold 
back our technology industry. This agreement was made in the 
interest of all parties involved. Microsoft will share information 
about the internal workings of Windows, and will be monitored by a 
government oversight committee. Let us allow the terms to work for 
themselves, and let our IT sector get back to work.
    I urge you to support that no more action be taken against this 
settlement. We need to get our technology industry back on track, 
and not hold them up any longer.
    Sincerely,
    Herman Kling



MTC-00026176

From: Mary E. Daudelin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: United States Department of Justice
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Comments
Date: Friday, January 25, 2002
    To paraphrase Mr. Glassman's comments pertaining to the 
Microsoft settlement, I feel that AOL could better spend its time in 
further analysis of its own product (especially with regard to its 
deployment overseas) rather than in continuing to pursue this case. 
My own personal experience with AOL has led me to believe that full 
utilization of the Internet is, in fact, restricted, when using 
their application.
    As a developer of WEB applications for research, business and 
educational purposes, I have utilized a variety of browsers, 
development tools and operating systems while producing and testing 
my applications. Although I use their NT servers and take advantage 
of their many development tools, such as FrontPage 2002, I have not 
found that the public cannot access my applications, regardless of 
their operating system and/or browser type (with the exception of an 
occasional prototype). In fact, until recently, Netscape has always 
been my personal choice of browser as it was the one that originally 
introduced me to the Internet. And SUN's StarOffice product has 
produced many graduate-school presentations for me.
    Because Internet Explorer is so forgiving of my JavaScript 
scripting errors, I find that I often HAVE to make myself utilize 
other browsers/systems in my testing to ensure that users who do not 
utilize their products/systems are not inundated with JavaScript 
errors that I have overlooked in my own code. My personal belief is 
that Microsoft has some damn good programmers that pay attention to 
detail, and, as such, should not be penalized for their technical 
excellence.
    Yes, my job would be even easier if I could convince everyone on 
this planet to use Microsoft OS's and browsers, IBM laptop 
computers, the same size monitor and to access the Internet via 
cable, however, since this attitude smacks of the old telecom 
mentality (a black rotary phone for everyone, by God!), and because 
we all have our different comfort levels, I will remain silent on 
that subject and continue to jump back and forth between computers/
systems/browsers in my testing.
    In closing, I feel that Microsoft should be used as an example 
of what works in our economy (little, if any, debt and innovative, 
easily accessible business solutions at a reasonable cost) and that 
this case should come to immediate closure.
    Sincerely,
    M. E. Daudelin
    iN21, Incorporated



MTC-00026177

From: Teri Bray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this email in support of the antitrust settlement 
between Microsoft, the Department of Justice and the nine states. I 
feel that each of these parties has gone through extraordinary steps 
to reach a settlement that meets the issues of the original claim 
and corrects the issues that are addressed in this action. It would 
be my hope that the court would accept this settlement and, in so 
doing, help to move these parties toward being a more productive 
member of the industry and society.
    I am very disappointed with the continued negative stance by the 
remaining states and other organizations that have continued to 
press for more drastic actions against Microsoft. I do not feel that 
these steps are reasonable, nor are they in the best interest for 
the most important people--the consumer. I do not feel that any 
of these parties have correct motives for their actions.
    I feel that Microsoft has taken every step possible to meet the 
needs of the consumer worldwide through its innovation and market 
forecasting. I do not feel that Microsoft should be punished purely 
for better forecasting and having the ability to provide a product 
that meets consumer needs, while other organizations have failed in 
this attempt.
    While Microsoft has made mistakes in some areas, I feel that the 
settlement between Microsoft, the Department of Justice and the nine 
states has taken sufficient steps to correct those areas and helped 
to ensure that such actions will not be repeated. I feel Microsoft 
has been a leader in the technological industry and has helped to 
bring the society to where it is today. Continuing these legal 
actions not only stifles these organizations, but the technological 
industry and society as a whole. Accepting this settlement is in the 
best interest for all parties and will help to move this industry 
back to one of cooperation, innovation and advancement toward the 
future.
    Respectfully,
    Teresa J. Bray



MTC-00026178

From: Michael Drone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
26 January, 2002
    Attorney General Ashcroft,
    It is my fervent belief that that Microsoft should no longer be 
subject to the vagaries of this antitrust suit. The U.S. system of 
justice, while one of the finest in the world, has in this case been 
usurped by a group of tech sector companies who are behaving no 
better than a band of brigands prowling the medieval roadside. To 
wit, they will gladly plunder a wealthy target to line their own 
larcenous pockets.
    Mercifully, Microsoft and the DOJ have reached a settlement that 
can put the American people out of this case's misery. In an ideal 
world, this suit whould never have been brought at all. However, in 
an ideal world, I'd be romantically involved with Liv Tyler. Suffice 
it to say, neither of those options are feasible at this time.
    Some opponents say that the settlement lets Microsoft off the 
hook with only a slap on the wrist. I have perused the settlement, 
however, and can only conclude that those who deride the settlement 
must be smoking some sort of powerful hallucinogenic substance. 
Under this settlement, Microsoft will have to accept provisions that 
would be the WWF equivalent of being on the recieving end of the 
Undertaker's devastating Last Ride, Stone Cold Steve Austin's 
patented Stone Cold Stunner, and the most electrifying move in 
sports entertaintment--the People's Elbow, consecutively. This 
is the exact antithesis of getting off easy.
    This antitrust suit has been more taxing on America's patience 
than the recent spate of reality-based television. I don't forsee 
NBC, ABC, CBS, or FOX changing their scheduling plans anytime soon, 
so the least that the country could do is end this lawsuit and 
accept the settlement. Thanks to the intern of staff assistant who's 
reading this for taking the time out of your day. I hope it's been 
both informative and, in some small part, entertaining.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Drone



MTC-00026179

From: Doby Fleeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Writing both as an individual citizen, and as a businessman, I 
find it particularly sad that our system of justice is being 
utilized to penalize the company that more than any other has been 
so much responsible for the success of the PC market and for the 
dominance of the United States in the area of software applications 
and to .
    Tough, maybe, but Microsoft has made Windows DOS the universal 
language of personal computing. That, alone, brings jobs and 
prosperity to the US economy.
    While the lawsuits have now succeeded in distracting Microsoft 
and in allowing other operating systems such as Linux to make 
inroads, it is not obvious that this is a great benefit to the 
United States or our economy.
    While AOL/Time Warner (is that the same Time/Warner who 
dominates so much of our

[[Page 27762]]

media markets?) is now trying desperately to push other blockades in 
the path of Microsoft, hopefully it will not find a willing 
accomplice in the form of the United States Government.
    Please stay the course and provide the impartial justice for 
which your office is known.
    Signed,
    Grateful to be an American!
    William Fleeman
    44513 So. El Macero Drive
    El Macero, CA 95618



MTC-00026180

From: Steve Carr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Please resolve this suit against Microsoft quickly and fairly. 
Due to Microsoft's success and competitive nature, companies who 
have less superior products and no marketing power are upset and 
trying to make their fortunes via unfair lawsuits. Local governments 
that support these companies are of course supporting them (it's 
their duty) and looking for a piece of the pie.
    The browser integration into Windows was not illegal and has not 
hurt consumers. It's required functionality for today's technology 
level just as Terminal programs were in the past. In the past when 
modem dialup was becoming popular, people were required to download 
modem connection programs from a dialup BBS. Since the OS didn't 
initially supply this functionality, consumers were left in a 
frustrating catch-22 situation. They needed dialup access to 
download a terminal program, but since they didn't have a terminal 
program, they didn't have dial-up access to do so. Microsoft 
integrated a terminal program that was good enough for some, while 
others used it to download their application of choice. If there was 
not a web browser included with Windows, we'd be in the same 
position. It's a required feature for today's online access. Users 
are still free to download other browser software if they choose to 
do so. There is choice.
    The browser functionality was further integrated into the 
operating system, not to kill off competitors but to gain 
functionality. Why develop several technologies when one could be 
used for multiple purposes. Browser software is after all just a 
language interpreter. It was initially required to support HTML used 
by web servers. The language became more powerful over time and 
became used for more than just web server interpretation. Help files 
for the OS and other applications for example could now be created 
in HTML instead of using proprietary help file formats. The OS needs 
functionality built in to read these help files. Non-OS help files 
(applications) could only be distributed if each application was 
bundled with interpretation software (browser) unless it could 
assume that an interpreter was already installed on the computer. 
For this to be guaranteed, it has to be built in. Browser technology 
has moved beyond even web server and help file interpretation. Now 
it's used to browse files and folders on the computer as well. 
That's a good thing. People can customize how different directories 
look and have more information available that a flat file list. 
Again, good for the consumer.
    There are other points brought up such as price breaks to OEMs 
for bulk deals or contracts requiring exclusive application 
placement to get price cuts. Is that illegal? Not to my knowledge. 
Many businesses do this. If you buy a product in bulk at the grocery 
store, it's cheaper. Buy two, get one free. Coupons supplied in the 
newspaper each Sunday advertise purchase these two products from a 
company and get a discount on this other product. It's done all the 
time, it always has been, and it's not illegal.
    I'm sorry to babble here, I'm just frustrated that so much time 
and money is continually wasted to satisfy people that cry fowl when 
they fail at something. I spilled coffee, I'm going to sue. I can't 
control myself, punish everyone else and make this illegal. My 
business didn't pan out because someone wrote better software than 
me, I'm going to sue. Put a rest to this garbage and stop punishing 
a company for their success. If you feel you need to protect others 
from individual success, then propose and create new laws based on 
the voters opinion; but please don't destroy a company to satisfy 
sore losers.
    These personal opinions are my own and should be treated as 
such.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Carr



MTC-00026181

From: Justin Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    With Microsoft strongarming the DVD industry into using Windows 
Media and already holding the patent on the ``Digital Rights 
Management Operating System'', they are poised to leverage 
absurd control over the standards and formats for digital media in 
the near future. Given that the legal system cannot move as quickly 
as the software industry, this is a very important opportunity to 
prevent Microsoft's anticompetitive strategies from spreading into 
new markets by producing a ruling that will firmly prevent future 
monopoly and encourage competition in both established and emerging 
markets.
    I support stronger action than the currently proposed 
settlement, and add my voice to the comments posted at http://
www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunneywine.html and http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html.
    Thank you,
    Justin D. Jones



MTC-00026183

From: Jerry (038) Annette Prioste
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please approve the antitrust settlement between Microsoft and 
the Dept. of Justice and nine states. This settlement is needed to 
heal the economy. My wife and I believe that the terms are more than 
fair to all parties involved. The terms will greatly help the 
consumer have the best products through competition while achieving 
lower prices. The antitrust laws were intended to keep consumers 
from paying higher prices due to monopolist practices. The antitrust 
settlement should not be about helping a few competitors like AOL 
and Sun Microsystems. AOL already has a lawsuit against Microsoft 
for a price greater than the value of Netscape.
    Let Microsoft and the industry move forward. Microsoft is the 
best US company ever to promote technological advances and economic 
growth in this country. Let competition and the consumer determine 
what is best for technological advances, not government regulation 
and greedy lobbyist (ENRON as example). The economy and the stock 
market will improve if this settlement is approve. If the settlement 
is not approved, consumers and technological innovation will be 
harmed. Please do the right thing for the consumer, APPROVE THE 
SETTLEMENT.
    Thank you,
    Jerry Prioste and
    Annette Prioste
    11614 North 68th Place
    Scottsdale, AZ 85254-5142



MTC-00026184

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    harsher punishments need to be done



MTC-00026185

From: Robert H. Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    We think it's time the government settled its case against 
Microsoft. It may be coincidental but the antitrust announcement 
against Microsoft may have caused the economic downturn and the 
downward spiral of the stock market--especially the NASDAQ.
    The persecution of this corporation was generated by such giants 
as AOL/Time Warner, who were jealous of its success. It's now time 
to stop this unnecessary and wasteful expense and get the country 
and economy moving forward in a positive manner.
    Sincerely,
    Robert H. Schmidt
    Norma M. Schmidt
    1313 Franklin Ave.
    Cinnaminson, NJ
    08077-2711



MTC-00026186

From: Brian Wendell Morton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:21pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To whomever this concerns,
    I understand that I have the ability to comment on the proposed 
settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft.

[[Page 27763]]

    I am a dedicated purchaser and user of Apple Computer products. 
Almost from the beginning, Microsoft has done whatever it felt 
necessary to undermine the Macintosh platform, starting with the 
outright ``theft'' of the Graphic User Interface that 
Apple used to revolutionize the computer for the average user. Until 
Microsoft realized that the platform was going not to be driven into 
the ground, MS did its best to co-op and/or drive under any 
developers who saw fit to produce for the Mac. Now Bill Gates has 
hedged his bets by owning several hundred thousand dollars of Apple 
stock.
    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 its plainly illegal conduct in the past, and 
virtually nothing whatsoever to prevent future violations of 
antitrust law. As a consumer, it infuriates me to be forced to pay 
for increasingly expensive software that diminishes in quality with 
each release. I applauded the Clinton administration's investigation 
of Microsoft. Their case was an effort to protect consumers and 
promote economic growth by restoring fairness and competition to the 
computer industry. At the start of this administration, it all but 
announced publicly that it was going to let Microsoft off scot-free, 
by Attorney General Ashcroft stating that he didn't think the 
government had a case, thereby, in poker terms, flagrantly showing 
the other side his cards.
    As the nation's legal advocate for citizens against the 
unchecked abuses of a corporate entity, this act was unconscionable. 
The United States is a successful nation because its free markets 
encourage firms to compete for customers by producing high-quality, 
low-cost goods. This system needs to be protected from monopolists 
who gain so much power that they can destroy the competitive nature 
of the markets in which they participate.
    I urge all parties involved to reconsider the proposed 
settlement. Microsoft deserves more than a slap on the wrist for its 
destructive abuse of its monopoly power. More importantly, American 
consumers need to be protected against future abuses from a company 
that sees the political establishment as one to be bought, 
competitors as enemies to be crushed and where the word 
``marketing'' can be freely substituted for 
``lying.'' Sort of like the management at Enron. We know 
what kind of oversight they got, don't we?
    Brian Morton
    1602 Hollins St.
    Baltimore, MD 21223-2429



MTC-00026187

From: svspire(a)nmia.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed Microsoft settlement.
    There are a number of problems with the proposed settlement, but 
I will focus on just one here: the lack of a requirement to force 
Microsoft to make their file formats available.
    Today it is virtually impossible to find a word processor or 
presentation package other than Microsoft Word or Powerpoint. They 
do exist, but they are niche products and their vendors are barely 
able to survive. It is also virtually impossible to obtain venture 
capital to start a new business competing with Microsoft in these 
areas. This is bad news for consumers. More competition is sorely 
needed in these markets.
    There is one major barrier to entry in these markets: the 
Microsoft file formats. In order to compete with Microsoft Office 
products, vendors must make their products ``compatible'' 
with Word, Powerpoint, Excel and the rest of the Microsoft Office 
suite. And making products ``compatible'' requires 
expensive reverse-engineering of Microsoft's proprietary file 
formats. It can be done, but it rarely succeeds 100%, which steers 
consumers and venture capitalists away from alternative products.
    If Microsoft made their file formats publicly available, other 
vendors would be able to write word processors and other office 
products that were 100% compatible and thus competitive with those 
from Microsoft. This would be good for other vendors, good for 
Microsoft, and especially good for consumers, since there is 
virtually no competition in this marketplace now.
    I do not advocate that Microsoft make their office suite 
``open source``--they can still maintain their 
proprietary advantage in the products themselves, but the 
particulars of the files that their products create should be made 
known. This will in no way hamper Microsoft's ability to compete in 
these markets, but it will encourage competition which does not 
exist today.
    I would not advocate that a company release proprietary 
information of this nature were it not a monopoly and thus a de 
facto standard in the industry. If healthy competition existed, 
there would be no need to release the file formats. But Microsoft 
clearly has a monopoly in this market which will persist unless 
these file formats are made public, and other remedies beyond those 
in the proposed settlement are put into place.
    Thank you,
    Shannon Spires
    Computer Scientist
    [email protected]



MTC-00026188

From: Ron Dong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:26pm
Subject: Miscrosoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I am a happy Apple customer. I work in the public schools using 
IMac's. Over the years I have seen the increasing domination of the 
computer industry by Miscrosoft. When I read the proposed 
settlement, I was outraged that such a settlement was even being 
considered. Miscrosoft is monopolistic. If it can get away with 
``giving'' schools old computers that only run Windows, it 
will be the death of the only competitor left out there, Apple. 
Miscrosoft needs to be punished for it past practices and not be 
allowed to continue any of its past predatory practices.
    Janice Dong



MTC-00026189

From: Jim/KJ7S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please Open the Attached File This is NOT a Virus
    thank You!
    Jim Anderson
    CC:
    Congressman Chris Cannon,[email protected]...



MTC-00026189 0001

JIM ANDERSON
95 N, CENTER, P.O. BOX 1. 4
CASTLE DALE. UTAH 84513
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
95(t Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Nr. Ashcroft,
    I am outraged that Microsoft was brought to trial three years 
ago. The case has progressed infuriatingly slowly, and has had a 
negative impact not only on the technology industry, but on the 
economy, and ultimarely the consumer as well. Now, as if to add 
insult to injury, Microsoft's competitors and the nine states m 
which they have influence arc seeking to undermine the settlement 
and bring additional litigation against the Microsoft Corporation. 
This is preposterous. America was built on the principles of free 
enterprise and innovation, and this settlement allows the government 
to suffocate the very values upon which the country was founded If 
Microsoft's competitors want the playing field evened, they need to 
market a product that is capable of competing on the same level as 
Microft's.
    The settlement is generous on Microsoft's part. and is more than 
fair to its competitors. In the interest of wrapping up the case, 
Microsoft has agreed to terms and conditions that extend to various 
facets of the Microsoft Corporation that were not deemed unlawful by 
the Court of Appeals. The settlement requires Microsoft to make a 
number of changes, the most reasonable of which, I believe, mandates 
open sourcing. Microsoft plans to reveal source code to its 
competitors for use in producing Microsoft- compatible software and 
operating within the Microsoft framework, Microsoft has also agreed 
to provide third parties with a license to pertinent intellectual 
properly rights, also with the intern of facilitating interaction 
between various software producers and Microsoft
    Absolutely no additional action needs to be taken in the Federal 
courts, Free enterprise is legal, and Microsoft is guilty of nothing 
more than success in a free market economy, 1 urge you to support 
the settlement and allow the industry to recover,
    Jim Anderson
    CC: Rco. Chris Cantata



MTC-00026190

From: David Brownell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached, please find my comments in opposition to the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. These are in HTML 
format.

[[Page 27764]]

    I will be sending these separately in hard-copy, since you 
appear to have no mechanism to acknowledge receipt of comments 
submitted by e-mail.
    - David Brownell
    Proposed Microsoft Settlement: Not In the Public Interest
    As a software engineer, with over twenty years in the industry, 
I feel compelled to comment on the proposed Antitrust settlement 
with Microsoft. These comments are provided in HTML format. I am 
sending these directly via electronic mail, and also by ``snail 
mail'' because it appears that the DOJ does not have any 
mechanism to acknowledge receipt of comments delivered 
electronically.
    In brief, I feel this is disappointingly weak and ambiguous with 
respect to basic requirements for redress and prevention. It fails 
to unfetter markets, and in many key respects it is amenable to 
further abuse by Microsoft rather than preventing such abuse. In 
several respects it seems to reward Microsoft by institutionalizing, 
rather than destroying or nullifying, its illegally obtained 
monopoly, even blocking further prosecution for similar future 
abuses. The public interest is not served by such a settlement. The 
proposed revision (from California and other states) is a clear 
improvement, but these comments do not apply to that. Consumers and 
competitors have both waited far too many years already; it's time 
for US antitrust law to finally do something significant to deter 
this particular corporate criminal.
    25 January, 2002
    David Brownell
    2569 Park Blvd #T-201
    Palo Alto, CA 94306
    Comments on the Revised Proposed Final Judgement
    My detailed comments are presented in two broad groups. First 
are general comments. Then, comments on the proposed settlement are 
organized according to the sections to which they apply. Note that 
since the true extent of lobbying by Microsoft has not been 
disclosed, I am one of many citizens who are concerned about the 
process that led to this extremely weak proposed remedy. While it 
has long been clear that Microsoft has not wanted to act in the 
Public Interest, it now appears that the company has been in contact 
with groups within the US Government who are likewise not acting in 
the Public Interest (despite the requirements placed on office 
holders). Based on the lack of information in the Competitive Impact 
Statement, it appears likely that at least the US Department of 
Justice may have some sort of hidden agenda or agreement to promote 
a weak agreement. This is exactly the sort of behavior that the 
Tunney Act review process was designed to expose, to help ensure 
that antitrust settlements are clearly in the public interest.
    General Comments
    At the beginning, I will mention my disappointment that the 
Department of Justice has chosen not to consider structural 
remedies, which could be the most effective and least invasive 
solution to these antitrust problems.
    Microsoft has repeatedly shown its intent to nullify or evade 
any legal constraints placed on its conduct. Based on that and the 
previous consent decree, I can not expect further conduct remedies 
to be particularly effective. Moreover, I would expect the costs of 
any truly effective conduct remedy to be substantial, since they 
would need to work against institutional structures which were set 
up to promote those unlawful anti-competitive behaviors.
    Proposed Microsoft Settlement: Not In the Public Interest file:/
//c/win/temp/response.
    In contrast, structural remedies would apportion more of the 
costs onto the guilty party (Microsoft), which is where they belong. 
Done well, they would prevent further monopoly abuses in both 
current and emerging markets, and would help provide redress to the 
customers by restoring product choice in ways that could not readily 
be reversed. Alternatively, it could provide a better model for 
dealing with the core OS monopoly of Microsoft: like other 
infrastructure providers, it could be a common career. (Other parts 
might then compete to provide value-added services. However, I note 
that ``Microsoft Office'' is also an effective monopoly in 
one application area.)
    The terms of the proposed settlement also discriminate against 
software in the public commons, which includes Free Software (as 
well as Open Source Software). Disclosures of technical information 
are made to companies, but the monopoly harms were also committed 
against customers that are not companies, and against non-customers. 
The settlement needs to address all victims of Microsoft's crimes, 
and it can't effectively do that while assuming that the only 
victims are Microsoft's customers and market partners (including 
direct competitors). Moreover, it should not focus (as it does) so 
exclusively on OEM product distribution channels that other channels 
are barely recognized.
    I would also like to highlight the degradation in security that 
Microsoft has fostered. Despite some recent initiatives to improve 
its public relations with respect to such issues, the fact remains 
that for the last decade or more Microsoft has actively worked to 
forestall security for computers and the Internet, by encouraging 
engineering techniques and solutions that were well known at the 
time to be insecure. (Also, by lack of prompt bug fixes.) 
Microsoft's monopoly powers were used to prevent better solutions 
from becoming widely available. Costs of such problems in the year 
2001 alone are widely estimated to exceed $2billion to businesses 
alone. (The best known examples were viruses enabled by Microsoft's 
executable code technologies, which are by design excluded from 
technologies such as Java.) These abuses of monopoly power, policies 
of investing against the public interest, deserve more appropriate 
consideration in the remedy proceedings than giving Microsoft an 
effectively unlimited safe harbor provision in this particular area.
    Although, as the saying goes, ``I am not a lawyer'', I 
found the text here substantially more ambiguous than most legal 
documents I have had cause to examine. These ambiguities do not 
arise from the usual causes, such as specific legal terms and 
idioms, or usages specific to legal contexts. The document just does 
not seem to be cleanly drafted. Since I know that I'm not alone in 
finding ambiguities here, I believe this reflects significant 
underlying problems in this proposed settlement, such as lack of 
true agreement on the intent of the language. Repeating the fiasco 
of the earlier Consent Decree is clearly not in the Public Interest.
    III: Prohibited Conduct
    The conduct that is prohibited does not go far enough to prevent 
certain notable abuses. And in terms of drafting, the fact that so 
many of the behaviors described here list required behaviors, rather 
than prohibited ones, makes me believe that I'm only noticing a 
handful of the ``thought problems'' with this proposed 
settlement.
    A
    Section III.A.2 supports Microsoft's anti-competitive ``no 
naked PCs'' program by allowing Microsoft to retaliate against 
OEMs with products that do not ship with any Microsoft platform 
software. An example would be a vendor shipping PCs that offers a 
base configuration with no operating system at all, or equivalently 
a Linux distribution (since that could have the same cost of zero 
dollars). If it only offered a Microsoft OS as an extra cost option 
(just like any other system component), Microsoft would be allowed 
to retaliate against such an OEM. Such a vendor would clearly be in 
the best interest of consumers, since it would support fully 
informed choice of OS, vendor, and version.
    By permitting cross-subsidy, this section effectively permits 
what it claims to prohibit: retaliation. OEMs that don't promote or 
license Microsoft products to the satisfaction of Microsoft are 
effectively retaliated against because they would not receive the 
``consideration'' received by other OEMs. Note that of all 
this industry's players, only Microsoft has enough power in enough 
different segments to be able to cross-subsidize in that way.
    B
    The licensing constraints in III.B that apply to the 
``Covered OEMs'' would only address hardware that has 
already reached the level of significant mainstream distribution. It 
also applies only to operating systems products; Microsoft has been 
shown to have abused its powers in several other product areas. 
Microsoft's monopoly power remains unconstrained with respect to 
companies offering choices within smaller markets, which are 
fundamental sources of innovation (and hence the source of the 
strongest latent threats to the Microsoft monopoly). Such 
constraints appear to best serve those Covered OEMs, rather than 
customers. Customers would be better served by seeing uniformity of 
pricing even if they use other OEMs. One effect I see is to deliver 
more equitable pricing to those OEMs, while not constraining 
Microsoft's behavior in the rest of the market. Moreover, even those 
OEMs are not protected against Microsoft efforts to churn newer 
(less well proven, less trustworthy) software by jacking up prices 
for more mature releases.
    In addition to smaller (non-Covered) OEMs and distributors of 
boxed software (such as Fry's or CompUSA), examples of concern to

[[Page 27765]]

me include VARs (often working closely with ISVs and IHVs to sell 
semicustom systems) and corporate buyers. All of those effectively 
do the later stages of system manufacturing themselves. They would 
often by preference acquire ``naked PCs'', perhaps adding 
specialized hardware, and then install custom packages of OS and 
application software. It appears that none of these channels are to 
receive the benefits of the more equitable pricing. Their customers 
are still fully subject to prices manipulated and inflated by the 
monopoly powers of Microsoft.
    C
    III.C seems to allow all such restrictions so long as they are 
not by ``agreement''. If that's intended to mean 
something, it's clearly bad: a loop-hole. If it's not, it should 
just be removed so that Microsoft is always forbidden such 
restrictions. Similarly, Microsoft seems to be allowed to restrict 
all non-OEM customers in these undesirable ways.
    III.C.3 could be amusing if I were so inclined. It disallows 
substitution of non-Microsoft products if they provide a user 
interface ``of similar size and shape''. That clearly 
means that if Microsoft uses a rectangular window sized large enough 
to desribe what's going on, any other product must either use a non-
rectangular window (looking ``bad'' and hence 
undesirable), or else must be too large or too small (likewise 
undesirable). It also appears to mean that if Microsoft bundles a 
new product that uses some window similar in size and shape to a 
pre-existing product from some other vendor, the other vendor must 
change its product. Giving such preferences to Microsoft is 
ludicrous.
    D, E
    These sections, in conjunction with bad or weak definitions, 
comprise one of the weakest parts of this proposed settlement. That 
is because preferential disclosure of interface information has been 
a major weapon used by Microsoft to protect its internal developers 
from competition by other software development organizations. That 
practice is not substantially reduced by this language. 
Insufficient/Selective Disclosure ``For the sole purpose of 
interoperating with a Windows OS Product'' is a worrisome 
constrai Proposed Microsoft Settlement: Not In the Public Interest 
file:///c/win/temp/response. it's not clear that this includes 
middleware network protocols (including security issues) and file 
formats. Since the disclosure requirements seems to apply only to 
``lower'' interfaces involved in middleware (to the OS) 
and network protocols used from a Windows OS product to Microsoft 
servers, it excludes the key ``upper'' middleware APIs (to 
applications) that are the reason for middleware to exist, and all 
other network protocols (including peer-to-peer, server-to-server). 
It also does not include interfaces used to boot the operating 
system. In short, the required disclosures have significant and 
fundamental technical omissions that will serve to nullify essential 
goals of having such disclosure requirements.
    Restricting the III.D disclosure to ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' as used by ``Microsoft Middleware 
Products'', as opposed to a more generally useful definition of 
``Middleware'' (see later) provides an unnatural 
limitation to the level of disclosure that should be required. For 
example, a specific trademark registration needs to be involved. 
Moreover, it permits Microsoft to cease disclosures merely by 
shifting to an exclusively ``bundled with the OS'' 
distribution model. While that is a good mechanism to strengthen a 
monopoly, it is very bad mechanism for the goal of preventing 
Microsoft from illegal monopolistic behaviors in the future, as 
required by such a settlement.
    Re III.E, I am concerned about the RAND licensing. This is 
explicitly permitting Microsoft to exclude Free Software (and Open 
Source) Software development from the requirements. Related text in 
III.J.2 carves out even broader exceptions from the basic 
requirement that interoperability specifications be disclosed. In 
terms of anti-competitive behavior, and in conjunction with some of 
Microsoft's existing licensing prohibitions related to that 
significant segment of the software world, this is a really 
significant issue. Freely licensed specifications should be the 
rule, and Microsoft should not be encouraged to use its monopoly 
power to force use of encumbered specifications. In particular, the 
sort of ``embrace and extend'' behavior Microsoft has 
adopted with the Kerberos authentication standard should be 
disallowed. (Microsoft requires use of extensions to Kerberos, which 
it has published while still calling them ``trade 
secrets''. A network using only standard, non-Microsoft, 
servers will not work with the latest Windows OS.)
    Late Disclosures
    The timings of these disclosures are problematic. They grant 
applications and middleware developers within Microsoft preferential 
access up to the point where design biases in their favor can no 
longer in practice be removed or ameliorated: a particularly huge 
beta test. The industry practice with which I am familar involves 
full API disclosure at the first beta test, and involves 
substantially complete disclosure at earlier test stages (alpha 
tests) where the APIs are still expected to change in significant 
ways. Such alpha testing is in part to get API feedback, so that key 
issues that were not recognized or prioritized internally can be 
addressed before final product decisions are made. (Of course, such 
feedback benefits from a certain amount of good will towards other 
companies that Microsoft has not demonstrated.)
    In this proposed settlement, external developers are presented 
with something which is largely a fait accompli, which preserves and 
strengthens the barriers to entry which favor Microsoft. (It also 
gives Microsoft developers at least a year's head start.) This sort 
of disclosure bias could be addressed by a structural remedy that 
places Microsoft developers for Applications, Middleware, and 
Operating Systems into separate organizations. The disclosures they 
make to each other would be the same as those made to other 
organizations, and would be made at the same time.
    Low Quality of Disclosure
    There need to be effective mechanisms to expose and fix bugs 
affecting operation of Microsoft products according to their 
disclosed interface specifications. If the actual behavior is always 
going to need to be modified according to a secret buglist that is 
less available than the base specification, such interface 
disclosures become ineffective. This implies updating Microsoft 
product development processes, which have often paid only lip 
service to the specifications to which they claim conformance, and 
conform??
    For example, the latest versions of Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer put its XML parser in a non-conformant mode, rather than 
just fixing the bugs in previous versions. The lack of penalty for 
false or incorrect disclosures suggests that those will continue to 
be strategically abused.
    Full technical specifications are basic parts of product 
interface specifications, and should be made available to all 
customers not just ``to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and 
OEMs''. This should include file format specifications (such as 
the MS-Word formats), which are directly analagous to the 
communications protocols that are partially addressed in the 
proposed settlement (particularly when those files are shared over 
networks).
    Lack of such disclosure prevents customers from accessing their 
own data, essentially institutionalizing the requirement of a 
``Microsoft tax'' that must be paid by large portions of 
the computing community. The true test of interoperability 
specifications is whether they support the development of multiple 
independent implementations. For middleware this is essential, and 
Microsoft must not be allowed to pass off shoddy or incomplete 
documentation as meeting the intent of this proposed settlement. The 
rule of thumb I have always used is that until it's been corrected 
by experience from for three independant implementations, a 
specification must be assumed to have substantive bugs. Since those 
often include design (including security) bugs, the initial 
implementation (such as perhaps a test version from Microsoft) must 
not be given undue deference.
    G
    III.G.1 says it's OK for Microsoft to have such ``fixed 
percentages'' in agreements so long as it's even marginally an 
underdog with respect to some targetted vendor. (That reading 
assumes vendors ship only one product of a given type. Other 
readings are possible, which are even more anti-competitive.) That 
amounts to saying it's OK selectively pick off competitors until the 
market is reduced to a duopoly; it's a formula for reducing 
competition. A goal of this settlement was supposed to be increasing 
competition rather than blessing more ways for Microsoft to abuse 
its monopoly power.
    H
    I'd sure feel better about these allowances (why are they in a 
section on ``prohibitions''?) if they required the 
Microsoft Middleware Product to actually get removed. Better yet, 
they should not be installed in the first place. After all, those 
Microsoft Middleware Products are taking up my disk space, and 
frequently create security holes by their very existence. (One 
current

[[Page 27766]]

example relates to Microsoft's media player providing a way to track 
users who, for security reasons, choose to disable the ability for 
sites to track them.)
    It's not clear why Microsoft is being given up to a year's more 
lead time on its competition, since key parts of this clause were 
announced (with significant fanfare) by Microsoft to take effect in 
2001. In the interim, other vendors are being harmed, and consumers 
are being harmed by the disappearance of such vendors. I'm sure that 
the III.H.3(b) waiver for automatic updates to my configuration 
makes Microsoft happy, knowing that two weeks after installation or 
any upgrade they are free to annoy users at any time because they 
prefer to use non-Microsoft technologies. I can't see how it would 
make any competitor happy, since it ensures that at least some 
customers will switch from that competitive product just to get rid 
of such ``nag boxes''. And when I wear my end user hat, I 
can say that it's clearly not in my own interest to have even more 
cases where a Microsoft product nags me to do what it wants me to 
do, rather than what I want it to do. Any more than a single 
appearance of such nag boxes should be explicitly forbidden.
    The second III.H.1 point (more bad/confusing drafting) should be 
deleted. If there's a technical reason, it would be covered by the 
second III.H.2 point, and if there is none then I don't want this to 
be a mechanism whereby Microsoft avoids full disclosure (III.E) of 
its middleware APIs/protocols. For example, portions of the 
``dot-NET'' infrastructure might be packaged in this 
loophole, as coud any number of proprietary protocols and file 
formats.
    The example in the second III.H.2 point is bothersome: it 
considers hosting ``a particular ActiveX component'' to be 
a reasonable requirement. On the contrary, security-aware users 
recognize ActiveX as a fundamental risk to their systems'' 
security, and disable it everywhere possible. Wearing an ISV (or 
VAR) hat, seeing that ``technical reasons are described'' 
is insufficient. That wording allows Microsoft to provide the most 
vague reasons, including ones that are flagrantly wrong or which 
embed substantial cost penalties for middleware competitors.
    When the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) recently proposed 
allowing RAND licensing for standards, on terms not dissimilar to 
these, that was roundly shot down. The point was made that such 
terms are fundamentally discriminatory: they preclude Free (and Open 
Source) Software, which is available without royalty or other 
consideration. Other text in 111.1.3 allows additional 
discrimination. It seems that III.I.5 allows Microsoft to extract 
reverse licences for (effectively) any technologies that are 
available to someone who needs a RAND licence from Microsoft. Such a 
reverse licensing constraint discriminates against those which have 
such licences to be extracted, so that clause is clearly contrary to 
the ``non-discriminatory'' requirement. In effect it 
legalizes a kind of extortion by Microsoft, and can also make the 
cost of getting such a license no longer be ``reasonable'' 
for organizations which become subject to such extraction.
    J
    I am deeply concerned about the carve-out created for 
``security'' issues. It is far too broad, and among other 
things institutionalizes the long-discredited notion of 
``security through obscurity''. That policy places 
individuals (and corporations) at risk because they will not be able 
to discover (and address) flaws. It does not increase security, 
since the bad actors will of course not be shy about sharing such 
information with each other; only people who play by these rules 
would be placed at risk. The almost unlimited scope of that carve-
out also means that Microsoft is being given a incentive to call 
things security issues when they aren't. For example, Bill Gates 
recently announced he wants to focus the company on its significant 
security problems. This has been described as an obvious attempt to 
focus on ways to fit more work into this carve-out.
    This mechanism will be used to create ``secret 
buglists'' that undermine the already flawed disclosure rules 
exactly where they need the most public scrutiny, not the least. 
Trust is earned, not dictated; so far the record for Microsoft's 
handling of security problems (beginning at the design stage and 
also post-shipment) is far below the standard used by most of the 
industry, notably including the Free (and Open Source) Software 
segments as well as most commercial UNIX vendors.
    In conjunction with flawed legislation such as the DMCA, this is 
deeply threatening to the individual liberties on which this nation 
was founded. Under the proposed settlement, if a user stored his (or 
her) own data in a file, Microsoft is allowed to use 
``security'' allegations to prevent that individual (or 
his co-workers) from using anything except Microsoft software, and 
paying the ``Microsoft tax'', to access that data. I feel 
that it is essential that the US Department of Justice not undermine 
fundamental liberties by helping Microsoft to prevent users from 
accessing their own data using non-Microsoft operating systems, 
middleware, or applications.
    Also III.J.2 seems to give Microsoft far too much control over 
who gets to see what kind of information. While admittedly there are 
some tricky policy issues here, the fundamental issue is that a 
``trusted computer system'' is meant to be trusted by its 
owner, not by someone that happens to be friendly with its 
manufacturer (perhaps because they both expect to extract more money 
from owners that way). Clauses (b) and (c) give Microsoft the 
ability to veto efforts that are not hosted by businesses, such as 
Free (and Open Source) Software activities or academic research, and 
hence which clearly do not have incentives to support commercially-
motivated security flaws.
    IV: Compliance and Enforcement
    This proposal is particuarly weak, even for what it tries to do. 
I believe this mechanism was either designed to fail (in favor of 
Microsoft), or was designed to be a straw man that would be replaced 
with something that might actually stand a chance of working. For 
example, something that gives an ISV that has been victimized by a 
Microsoft action some legal recourse would seem to be desirable. 
(Except of course to Microsoft.) The rule in IV.D.4.d (preventing 
this TC or its work from participating in court proceedings) makes 
me believe the former option may be the most realistic view: this 
procedure was not intended to succeed at the goals of providing 
rememedy or preventing further abuses.
    Only three people are not enough to keep an eye on such a huge 
monopoly. That's particularly true since the anti-competitive 
constraints in IV.B.2 ensure they can't be particularly focussed on 
(or aware of) the most current tactics used by Microsoft to evade 
constraints as described in other parts of this proposed settlement. 
I could almost imagine an office led by three such people, except 
that each one would surely need a significant staff (IV.B.8.h) that 
are more actively aware of the issues that need attention (that is, 
less subject to the IV.B.2 constraints).
    Fundamentally, the requirement that the three TC members be 
``experts in software design and programming'' is in some 
conflict with the requirement that they be effective compliance 
officers. Surely it is most important that the TC staff hold many 
such experts than that the nation be combed for true experts that 
can also be effective compliance officers--which is a rare 
combination. Most of this section defines a bureaucracy, and any 
``expert'' I've ever known would be deeply stifled by what 
I read there. The job description is not fundamentally one of 
software design and programming. And only (IV.A.2.a) during 
``normal office hours''? Software developers rarely keep 
banker's hours, and the parts of businesses that work with them also 
adapt. Of necessity, so would the parts of those offices that work 
with those parts of Microsoft.
    V: Termination
    The settlement does not offer stong and effective mechanisms for 
enforcement: there are no real ``sticks''. It expires 
automatically whether or not Microsoft's behavior has been improved. 
If Microsoft doesn't want to behave, it can stall until the lifespan 
of the agreement expires. I am deeply concerned by the requirement 
in IV.D.4.d that prevents any failures of the compliance procedures 
from being used in court. Rather, they should be key efforts 
determining whether it is appropriate to terminate this proposed 
settlement.
    The only incentives appear to be within the scope of the current 
distorted software markets. But until the market structure becomes 
competitive, rather than monopolistic, today's market incentives 
only further the Microsoft monopoly. Minimally, no settlement should 
terminate until those marketplaces are restored to technical and 
structural diversity, and are healthy in that state. Just knowing 
that ``running out the clock'' can't work would be a 
minimal incentive (``carrots'') to encourage that change.
    VI: Definitions
    A number of these definitions embed strong anti-competitive 
biases, which work in Microsoft's favor against the competition this 
settlement is intended to restore. Such definitions nullify the 
useful effect of what need to be broad constraints on Microsoft's 
conduct.

[[Page 27767]]

    A: API
    As noted above (III.D, III.E), there are several programming 
interfaces related to an ``Middleware Product'', and this 
specifies ``API'' as the ``lower'' level of such 
interfaces, which are typically operating system interfaces. 
However, the goal of middleware is explicitly to ensure that 
applications only need to use the ``upper'' level, hiding 
those lower level calls. In particular, when using a middleware API 
the classic goal is to be independent of the particular OS in use. 
That is, the goal is to NOT use the APIs covered by this definition. 
Defining APIs in this un-useful way substantially reduces the scope 
of the products that this document addresses as competition, and in 
ways that are strongly counter to normal usage.
    This definition reflects a fundamental misunderstanding in that 
it defines the middleware API at the wrong level. These lower 
interfaces certainly need to be documented, because they are often 
currently hidden as operating system ``back doors'' by 
Microsoft. In some cases, APIs have been deployed that were not 
immediately used by Microsoft products, but which were used in 
upcoming versions. This definition should include all such 
interfaces that are part of shipping operating systems, regardless 
of whether they are currently in use.
    Such hiding needs to be prevented, since it protects Microsoft's 
applications barrier to entry, and prevents emergence of competing 
middleware. Such hidden interfaces have also been known to provide 
security holes that are intended to facilitate Microsoft 
(mis)features. They would not normally be called 
``Application'' interfaces in the context of a middleware 
discussion, and good systems architecture would not even enable the 
interfaces which bypass security mechanisms. This point is 
strengthened by the fact that Microsoft does not currently document 
these APIs, as it would for APIs which it encourages applications to 
use.
    H, I: ``Vendor''
    This appears to bias the entire settlement against certain kinds 
of hardware and software development process, such as 
``Free'' and ``Open Source'' Software. Microsoft 
should not be given the right to discriminate this systematically 
against one of its most effective competitors. (And perhaps its last 
one, given that its monopoly powers to create new barriers to entry 
are barely affected by this proposed settlement.) Minimally, it 
should be explicit that such ``Free'' and ``Open 
Source'' Software developers are included among those who 
should have full access to interface disclosures addressed by this 
agreement. One simple solution might be to include them as ISVs.
    J, K: ``Middleware''
    Classically ``middleware'' includes API components 
that are part of neither the operating system nor the application. 
The constraints in section VI.J (such as being trademarked) are 
technically irrelevant, except perhaps towards a goal of minimizing 
the number of Microsoft APIs which are subject to disclosure. (Such 
a goal would not be in the Public Interest.)
    Middleware is typically intended to insulate applications from 
operating system issues, such as dependency on any one OS version or 
vendor. Microsoft has numerous such API components, many of which 
are licensed as ``Redistributable Components'', but the 
proposed settlement excludes almost all such middleware from its 
inappropriately limited scope. The settlement should apply to all 
such middleware, not this handful of all such programming 
interfaces.
    Microsoft has used constraints on such components to keep 
products competing with its own platforms and development tools out 
of the market. For example, a number of years ago Borland was not 
allowed to include even the APIs to such components with its 
development tools because it also offered a technically superior 
alternative to Microsoft's ``MFC''. Today, related 
constraints apply to software that is developed using Visual C++: 
the ``Redistributable Components'' middleware may only be 
used on operating systems from Microsoft. That needlessly ties many 
applications to a Microsoft OS, and prevents their use with 
compatible alternatives. Such constraints should be forbidden.
    U.''
    Code for a ``Windows Operating System Product'' shall 
be determined by Microsoft at its sole discretion ... this is huge 
hole. This discretion allows Microsoft to arbitrarily bundle new 
software which would in ordinary usage be ``middleware'', 
and be the subject of competitive markets. To my understanding, this 
degree of discretion substantially exceeds that allowed by US 
Supreme Court precedent, as well as that permitted by the Appeals 
court in this case. Such language is demonstrably counter to the 
Public Interest.
    It has been shown that abuse of such discretion has been one of 
the core anti-competitive weapons used by Microsoft. For example, it 
expressly permits the illegal commingling of browser code with the 
operating system. No settlement can be in the public interest which 
does not provide redress for those previous actions, and which does 
not prevent future repeats of such actions.



MTC-00026191

From: Theodore Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Over the past three years, the IT industry has held its breath 
in anticipation for an imminent end to the US vs. Microsoft lawsuit. 
Now that a proposed settlement has been reached, consumers and the 
IT industry have an opportunity to return to business as usual. This 
is critical for the industry as well as our economy in general.
    Under the settlement agreement, Microsoft will not return to 
business as usual. The settlement will penalize Microsoft and may 
require it to modify its products. Microsoft will be forever 
scrutinized by a three-person committee that will also control how 
Microsoft does business in the future.
    I sincerely believe that it is critical for American 
competitiveness, the IT industry and the US consumer that the 
proposed settlement be formalized as soon as possible. I urge the 
Department of Justice to do all within its power to formalize the 
proposed settlement as soon as legally possible.
    Sincerely,
    Theodore Nelson, Jr.
    2812 Shamrock Drive
    Allison Park, PA 15101
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00026192

From: Ammon Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a bad settlement!!



MTC-00026193

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stuart David Gathman
13145 Pavilion Lane
Fairfax, VA 22033
(703)378-9641
[email protected]
    Dear Sirs,
    Based on my best effort to understand the lawyer talk, the 
proposed Microsoft Settlement does not seem to address some 
important injustices.
    1) SOFTWARE DONATIONS
    Since when should Microsoft ``pay'' their fine with 
free software? Their competitors would jump at the chance to 
contribute free software to schools. Let Microsoft contribute just 
the hardware. Let the schools pick Intel vs. PPC and Windows vs 
Linux vs Mac.
    2) OPEN SPECIFICATIONS
    It is good that the settlement attempts to enforce open APIs for 
Windows. This is good for Windows customers as it allows fair access 
for non-MS software. However, it is even more important to enforce 
open public specifications for Microsoft file formats. It should be 
possible for competing products to import/export Microsoft documents 
without reverse engineering them. It is critically important for 
Windows users that external security software be able to reliably 
strip executable code (e.g. macros, embedded objects) from Microsoft 
documents. Furthermore, a complex public specification requires a 
reference implementation. The Windows API will never be properly 
documented without an open source reference implementation. The 
reference implementation would not be as efficient as Microsoft 
Windows, but it would make up for inadequate documentation. If an 
application runs on Microsoft, but not the reference platform, 
either the reference platform needs fixing, or Microsoft is pulling 
another fast one. Microsoft should not be able to prevent 
alternative implementation by claiming patents for API interface 
features. (Like Apple did with using compressed images in the 
QuickDraw API.) If they claim any such patents, they should be 
waived for non-commercial open-source implementations, and 
reasonable licensing or cross licensing should be available to a 
commercial implementor.

[[Page 27768]]

    3) THE MICROSOFT TAX
    I hate paying for Windows when I buy a computer and don't use 
it. It is not clear to me that the settlement prohibits this. A 
computer without Windows should be cheaper than a computer with 
Windows by at least 1/2 the retail cost of Windows. There should be 
no disincentives for the manufacturer to offer alternative OSes 
preinstalled. (E.g. increased Microsoft OEM pricing for allowing 
competitors. I think the settlement prohibits this, but I'm just 
making sure.) In summary, I think we all agree that Microsoft should 
be allowed to make money, but not to rule the world.
    Stuart D. Gathman
    Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 
703 591-6154
    ``Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus 
addictis''--background song for a Microsoft sponsored 
``Where do you want to go from here?'' commercial.



MTC-00026194

From: Jim _
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I believe the antitrust settlement against Microsoft to be fair, 
and I am hoping it will be final.
    Thank you,
    Jim Kay (a concerned, voting citizen)
    1312 N. Parker Rd.
    Greenville, SC 29609



MTC-00026195

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen;
    I just want to voice my opinion on the case against Microsoft, I 
believe that the proposed settlement is overall very generous by 
Microsoft and should be accepted. In fact I do not believe the case 
ever had any merit, and am disappointed that it ever got this far.
    Thank You,
    Raymond F Frattini



MTC-00026196

From: Mike Klein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please reject the current proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft has shown unabated behavior to strengthen, using 
whatever means it can get away with for as long as it can, its 
monopoly position in operating systems and other areas. It is 
broadly defining strategies, many likely illegal, to apply its 
enormous resources to dominate future areas: Internet access, 
Internet commerce, personal information management, media content 
and distribution, and more.
    While most of Microsoft's products and services are, at best, 
mediocre quality with few limited innovations and fundamental 
advances, they are the only standard by which most people know 
computers today. Most people do not have any idea of ``what 
could or should have been''. This is terribly unfortunate, as 
many excellent ideas and technologies have been snuffed out by 
Microsoft's illegal practices and will continue suffer that fate.
    Microsoft's continuing illegal actions since it was convicted of 
illegally using its monopoly position make it obvious that nothing 
but drastic legal action against Microsoft with massive penalties 
for future violations will open competition in the computer 
industry. Please reject the proposed Microsoft settlement, and work 
on developing a way to open the industry back up to good ideas. Too 
much is at stake.
    Thank you,
    -Michael F. Klein, Ph.D.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026197

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:35pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft settlement
    Let's go on and settle this matter. I think Microsoft has been 
unfairly dealt with in this matter. No one forces a person or 
company to purchase and use Microsoft products. They furnish a 
needed product and need to be let alone.
    Ray Cantrell
    4083 Isom Cove
    Millington, Tn 38053



MTC-00026198

From: Leland Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:36pm
Subject: Don't Let Microsoft Off the Hook
    Dear Judge,
    The facts against Microsoft are clear. Judge Jackson was 
correct, as was the appeals court, in determining Microsoft to have 
violated antitrust law. They will continue to do so unless a severe 
punishment is enacted. Please don't let them off the hook once 
again.
    Windows XP and their .NET initiative are both flagrant examples 
of their continued search for ways to maintain their illegal 
monopoly of the computer marketplace, and both of these initiatives 
came AFTER they had been found guilty of violating antitrust laws by 
earlier actions. Clearly, they have not learned their lesson, and 
the Government's proposed settlement is not sufficient to reign them 
in.
    Regards,
    A concerned citizen



MTC-00026199

From: Donna Duggan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I heard about the opportunity for the public to comment on the 
proposed settlement, so I figured I would at least give it another 
try. We believe that the settlement as agreed is just and fair, and 
we also believe that the time is long past to get this over with. 
Innovation and progress can not flourish in this type of 
continuously litigious environment (I am not a lawyer, so I don1t 
know how that word is spelled, but basically I am sick and tires of 
all the lawyers filing law suits!). Neither can the U.S. economy, 
which desperately needs help. Basically, we are sick and tired of 
some of these companies and their CEOs, who seem to be thriving on 
the publicity that their constant negativity is bringing them. I 
never hear them talk about their products and how good they are. I 
only hear them talk about how bad Microsoft is. Could there be a 
reason for this? I have said it before, and I will say it again. 
Neither one of us works for Microsoft, and we also do not know a 
great deal about computers, so I don1t think we are terribly biased 
in all of this. But I do know how to find and download a product 
that I want, and I know how to get rid of one I don1t want. I was 
not surprised to find Internet Explorer on my PC, and I was also not 
surprised to find Netscape Navigator on my iMac. I was surprised at 
how terrible Netscape was, and how many times it caused my computer 
to crash. When I had finally had enough, I switched to Internet 
Explorer, and have had no problems. It seems to me that many of 
these companies would be better served by recruiting and hiring 
talented programmers who are capable of putting out a reasonable 
stable quality product, than by suing their competitors. This is the 
reason that we are currently using Microsoft products; not because 
of their monopoly, which as far as I am concerned is the natural 
monopoly of a better product.
    I also fail to see how antitrust laws do anything to help the 
consumer. My perception in the past is that they rend to make my 
busy life even more busy and difficult. Witness our telephone bill, 
which is now beyond the comprehension of most non-accountants or 
Rhodes Scholars. Is this making my life better? I don1t think so. I 
want my computer(s), and their related software, on which I have 
become dependent, to function as a seamless, single entity. I like 
not having to connect to the internet, and having my computer do it 
for me. If some people don1t, give them that option, but let me keep 
mine also. But most of all, I would like these companies to work 
together for the betterment of the industry, and get over their 
destructive sour grapes. I know--fat chance. But can1t they at 
least try?
    Thank you.
    Jim and Donna Duggan



MTC-00026200

From: B Nitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3'39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
u.s. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
[email protected]
    Honorable Judge Hesse:
    Our nation currently faces far greater challenges than the 
market abuses of which Microsoft has been found guilty. It is 
tempting to quietly end this anti-trust case with a minimal or 
symbolic remedy. I strongly believe that this would be a mistake. A 
fair remedy will revive the strength and competitiveness of our 
computer industry. It would also greatly improve the security of our 
information infrastructure. The proposed remedy has many obvious 
legal and technical defects which make it unlikely to be any more 
effective than the remedies levied in

[[Page 27769]]

previous cases. Section III.J is a loophole which allows Microsoft 
to continue exposing some internal functions (APIs) and data 
structures to it's own middleware products without publishing them 
to potential competitors. The unnecessarily narrow definition of 
``Personal Computer'' allows Microsoft to punish Apple and 
Sun because neither use Intel X86 compatible microprocessors. I'm 
also concerned that the complexity of this remedy might cause 
Microsoft to unintentionally violate some of the terms, which would 
lead to further expensive court cases.
    Others may have already brought these problems to your 
attention. As a software engineer I would like to address a 
different aspect of the settlement. I intend to address the national 
readiness and security implications of anti-competitive behavior and 
present a possible solution. THE LOST DECADE (THE TECHNOLOGICAL DARK 
AGES)
    I began working in the computer industry shortly before 
Microsoft released Windows 3.0. By 1985, Amiga, Apple, DEC and 
others had developed computer operating systems with many features 
which we take for granted today but which did not exist on 
Microsoft's dominant OS of that time: Mouse-driven graphical 
interface with overlapping windows, long filenames, multitasking, 
color, full screen multimedia video, speech synthesis. These were 
not fast computers but the operating systems made efficient use of 
the hardware and provided a level of usability and perceived 
performance that Microsoft would not attain for another 10 years.
    By 1995 Microsoft had captured much of the PC operating system 
market through practices which have since been repeated in other 
markets. Competitors were driven into obscurity. When Windows 95 was 
released, it had many of the features that existed on competing 
operating systems of the mid 1980s. A common argument for a weak 
settlement is that without Microsoft, we would not have reached 
today's level of sophistication . On the contrary, it appears that 
Microsoft actually retarded the development of efficient desktop 
operating systems by eliminating viable competition. WHILE WE WERE 
EDITING AUTOEXEC.BAT FILES...
    When I first accessed the internet in the early 1990s, I was 
surprised to see such an active software development community 
outside of the United States. People from eastern europe, Germany, 
Finland, and elsewhere were writing high quality software for 
computers which were no longer in the U.S. mainstream. We didn't 
know it, but our concentration on Microsoft Windows was causing us 
to fall behind other parts of the world. Microsoft Visual Basic and 
Microsoft Certifications became more important than a college degree 
in maintaining a software career in the U.S. When Microsoft retires 
a certification such as MSCE, the student must upgrade their 
certification lest it becomes as obsolete as Windows 95. It is much 
like a mechanic who learns how to fix a Model-T Ford without 
learning how cars work. When presented with a VW Beetle, the overly-
specialized mechanic is lost.
    When the Microsoft monopoly finally penetrated these parts of 
the world, many users already knew too much. They refused to regress 
to the 1980s. A Finnish youth went so far as to create a new 
operating system. His experiment grew to become Linux, one of the 
most common webserver operating systems on the internet. Linux is 
becoming popular on desktops in europe and according to some 
sources, has a 15% market share in Asia.
    It may be no accident that U.S. companies are now exporting jobs 
to and importing software developers from countries which had active 
communities of software development outside of Microsoft's sphere of 
influence. What is known as ``Open source'' is currently 
one of the most fertile areas of software development and much of 
this is taking place outside of our borders. A lack of competition 
in the U.S. auto industry of the 1970s allowed it to grow 
inefficient and vulnerable to foreign competition. It appears that 
we are making the same mistake. Our computer industry is now so 
dependent on this single vendor that any failure of Microsoft could 
be more damaging than the collapse of Enron. USING DIVERSITY AS A 
DEFENSE
    It can be easily demonstrated mathematically and with 
computational simulations that an infrastructure based on diversity 
is less likely to experience a total failure from a single cause. So 
when we base our information infrastructure on a single operating 
system, we are making the same mistake as those who chose a single 
variety of chestnut tree to shade the streets of American cities. We 
become vulnerable as those who depended on potatoes for their sole 
source of food in the 1850s. We needn't repeat this mistake, but if 
things don't change I fear that we will. Nimbda, Code Red and 
variants caused an estimated $15 Billion worth of damage. My logs 
showed that infected Microsoft Windows computers tried to install 
one of these worms on my computer about 100 times per hour. These 
attacks were unsuccessful only because my computer was not 
compatible.
    I was fortunate to have developed software under multiple 
operating systems. My most recent project under Microsoft Windows 
was the development of software to install security patches, Y2k 
patches and anti-virus software while removing unnecessary 
vulnerable features which Microsoft installs by default. I began to 
see that much of our software industry is dedicated to overcoming 
limitations in Microsoft Windows.
    Here are some examples:
    1) Viruses, worms and other vulnerabilities can access all data 
on a computer and possibly the entire local network.
    2) A single application failure can cause a computer to crash.
    3) Network configuration changes, security patches or software 
install usually require a reboot. Dozens of reboots may be necessary 
to install software for a typical business.
    4) The last 3 characters of a filename determine which 
application is used open the file, but they are often hidden from 
the user. Creators of simple-minded worms such as 
``Melissa'' and ``I Love You'' can fool a user 
into invoking powerful system tools simply by naming the worm 
something like ``hello.doc.vbs'' or 
``hello.pps.reg''
    5) Large businesses must work with thousands of computers which 
may have subtle differences in DLL version numbers, installed 
patches, hardware interrupts. There is no significant barrier 
between user data and system data which would allow a corporation to 
deploy a common environment to its entire workforce. Each computer 
becomes as unique as a snowflake and the number of potential 
configuration problems can equal or exceed the number of computers.
    Users of Microsoft Windows demand ever faster processors and 
more memory, but give little thought to the above limitations. They 
are taken almost as laws of nature to be ignored or worked around. 
But most of these problems are unique to Microsoft Windows. They 
were solved long ago by companies such as Sun, Apple, IBM, HP and 
Digital. The inertia of a non-competitive industry has locked us in 
the technological dark ages. ALLOWING CONSUMERS TO USE THE RIGHT 
TOOL FOR THE JOB
    When Microsoft captures the market for a product such as a web 
browser word processor or media player, it has a choice. It can 
integrate all of these products into Windows or it can pare them 
down to something marketable to the widest audience. In either case, 
it is Microsoft, not the consumer, who makes this decision. We are 
forced to use a tool that is not optimal for our needs. Most people 
do not need the IIS webserver that came with certain versions of 
Windows. As we've seen, these unecessary features can open up 
significant security vulnerabilities. One argument against a strong 
remedy is that ``Microsoft makes good products.'' This 
implies that their market position was attained through honest 
competition and . This is simply not true. Microsoft employs some 
very talented developers and packages software that meets some 
consumer needs. Perhaps they could have attained their current 
market share without illegal anti-competitive practices, but it is 
now impossible to know.
    A careful examination does show that there are very few unique 
ideas in Microsoft's middleware or operating system products. 
Microsoft's strength comes not from superior technology, but from 
the exclusive control of most aspects of an integrated environment. 
It is only when Microsoft forces the consumer to take it's products 
``all or nothing'' that it can wedge all potential 
competitors out of a market. The default Microsoft configurations 
may be appropriate for many small business and home users but they 
are not the optimal for artists, writers, teachers, scientists, 
doctors or software engineers. They are a ``least common 
denominator.'' REENABLING THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
    It is in the public interest that files and documents maintain 
compatibility between different types of computers and between 
different versions of an application. It is in Microsoft's interest 
to break compatibility with versions of it's own applications and 
with competing middleware products. When I receive an email 
containing an attachment written in the latest version of Microsoft 
Word, I am forced to upgrade to the sender's

[[Page 27770]]

version of Word, or hope that my favorite competing product is 
somehow able to read it, or I can ignore the email. Competitors must 
devote significant resources in decoding Microsoft's undocumented 
formats so that their applications can share information. Because of 
it's marketshare, Microsoft has the luxury of remaining incompatible 
with competitor's formats.
    Shortly after the September 11th attack, the U.S. Government 
announced a Broad Agency Announcement calling for proposals on anti-
terrorism technology. Requirement 3.2.2 of this document states: 
3.2.2 File Format and Content
    The White Paper shall be prepared in color or black and white in 
Microsoft (Office-98) Word or Adobe PDF (Version 4 or higher) 
electronic file format.
    The document must be print-capable and without password, using 
text font and graphic file formats that will cause the document to 
be NO LARGER THAN 500KB IN FILE SIZE.
    Numerous other examples can be found by searching http://
www.google.com with the keywords: ``white paper'' rfp 
format ``microsoft word'' shall This default sole-sourcing 
of Microsoft products is very common on .gov, .us and .mil sites. 
Why are we storing important government documents in an undocumented 
proprietary format which is likely to become obsolete next year? Why 
not use an industry standard such as HTML, RTF, UNICODE or ASCII? 
Why would the U.S. government accept a format that is known to host 
hundreds of viruses that already caused billions of dollars worth of 
damage? It is because few are aware of an alternative. At one time 
it seemed that the popularity of HTML would solve this compatibility 
problem. I could view the same webpage on a Sun workstation, a 
Windows PC, and the text-based ``lynx'' browser which is 
useful for the blind or those with slow network connections. By 1998 
many websites began using Microsoft proprietary technology in such a 
way that the lynx browser no longer worked. This problem continues 
to worsen. Today many web pages are no longer work properly on 
computers which don't run Microsoft Windows. Information access is 
increasingly being tied to the products of a single company. 
PROPOSED REMEDY
    A truly competitive market should lead to a system where the 
consumer and producer's needs are balanced. Microsoft's monopoly 
status allowed it to shift this balance away from the consumer and 
at the same time prevented competitors from filling the void in the 
market. My proposed remedies would address specific problems in the 
computer industry which were caused by this imbalance:
    (1.) PROBLEM: It is in Microsoft's interest to change data 
formats often so that users are forced to upgrade. It is also in 
their interest to make their format incompatible with competitors 
and other industry standards. It is in the public interest that 
these formats remain stable.
    REMEDY: Microsoft data formats must not change for 5 years 
unless the following conditions are met:
    a) The proposed change to the format is published one year prior 
to its release.
    b) The source code for converting between old and new formats is 
published.
    c) The proposed change must be agreed to by a consortium of at 
least 10 competitors.
    d) The proposed change must be voted on by a majority of 
consumers that is greater than Microsoft's market share for the 
specific type of product.
    (2.) PROBLEM: Microsoft continues to extend its influence into 
other areas and is on track for making the internet a Microsoft 
proprietary medium.
    REMEDY: Any new API or Protocol that Microsoft deploys on the 
public internet must meet the criteria for data formats which is 
described in section (1.)
    (3.) PROBLEM: Microsoft packages software in such a way that 
users must pay for content which they don't need and which degrades 
the security and performance of their computer.
    REMEDY: All documented APIs shall be called ``The Operating 
System.'' All undocumented API's shall be called 
``Middleware.''
    a) Microsoft shall provide the capability to remove all 
undocumented APIs without degrading the performance or functionality 
of documented APIs.
    b) Microsoft must reduce the cost of this stripped 
``Operating System'' by an amount proportional to the 
development cost of the the software that was removed.
    (4.) PROBLEM: Microsoft's dominance on the desktop leaves our 
information infrastructure vulnerable to attack.
    SOLUTION: Microsoft shall remit a fine of $10 Billion which is 
to be placed in a fund which will be used to purchase computers for 
schools, charities, government and non-profit agencies and foreign 
aid. These computers shall be configured to be incompatible with all 
existing Microsoft products.
    (5.) PROBLEM: It is in Microsoft's interest to obsolete 
certifications as often as possible. It is in the public interest 
that this knowledge be general and usable in the future.
    SOLUTION: Microsoft shall reimburse students for the cost of any 
certification which becomes obsolete within 5 years of its creation. 
SUMMARY
    Our free market system is by far the most efficient economic 
system, but it becomes unstable and dangerously inefficient when an 
industry is so dominated by a single vendor even in the case where 
the vendor acts in what it believes is the most benevolent manor. 
The Sherman anti-trust act is a safety valve which must be used to 
re-level the playing field when such an imbalance occurs. If fair 
remedies are not implemented in this case, our important computer 
technology sector will fall behind and damaging monopolies may soon 
encompass other industries.
    Respectfully Yours,
    Brian Nitz
    U.S. Citizen Working in Ireland
    I The Priory,
    Malahide
    County Dublin



MTC-00026201

From: Michael A. Endsley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the Microsoft settlement. I honestly hate buying a 
new computer and having Windows on it when I don't want it.
    Michael A. Endsley



MTC-00026202

From: Jason Grochowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jason Grochowski
970 Jefferson Square
Unit E
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
January 25, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order
    As stated in the Federal Register:
    ``Following a 7-day trial in late 1998 and early 1999, the 
United States District Court found that Microsoft had violated both 
sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. On appeal, the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously affirmed 
portions of the district court's finding and conclusion that 
Microsoft illegally maintained its operating system monopoly in 
violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, but reversed and remanded 
other portions of the district court's determinations. Specifically, 
the court of appeals reversed the district court's determination 
that Microsoft violated section 2 by illegally attempting to 
monopolize the Internet browser market and remanded the district 
court's determination that Microsoft violated section 1 of the 
Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its browser to its operating 
system.'' As Microsoft's guilt has been maintained (at least 
partially) and we are now in the penalty phase of the trial, I find 
it greatly disturbing that the current settlement does nothing to 
punish Microsoft for its illegal activities. It also does nothing to 
create an environment where competing products are given a fair 
chance against the colossal momentum Microsoft possesses in the 
software industry. After reviewing the thoughts of several others 
who have commented on this, particularly the letter published by 
Ralph Nader and James Love and the comments of Dennis E. Powell of 
LinuxPlanet, I would like to reiterate the following thoughts on 
what should be included in Microsoft's punishment:
    First, in the purchase of new computers: the purchase of the 
operating system and the computer hardware itself should no longer 
be bound together. Users who do not wish to purchase Microsoft 
Windows would no longer be forced to. Buyers would have the 
opportunity to evaluate Microsoft's product at its true cost and 
compare it to alternatives. This step is crucial to give competing 
products a foothold in the Microsoft dominated world.
    Second, Microsoft must make all current and future file format 
specifications open to the public. This way documents created in any 
Microsoft application can be read by

[[Page 27771]]

applications from competing manufacturers. Only then can the true 
value of their software be determined by the public. Rather than be 
locked into a particular application simply because of file format 
issues, buyers can judge the product's features, design, and 
usefulness on its own merits. The current settlement calls for the 
opening of the Windows API so third parties can better develop 
software that works with Windows. This is a good step forward, but 
this is a world that is increasingly connected 
electronically--that means exchanging data. We need to be able 
exchange data that is compatible with Microsoft and non-Microsoft 
applications. Also disturbing is the clause in the current 
settlement stating that Microsoft can withhold technical information 
from third parties on the grounds that they do not certify the 
``authenticity and viability of its business.'' This is an 
obvious attack on the Free Software movement, a key competitor for 
Microsoft in high-end applications and servers.
    Third, any network protocols created by Microsoft need to be 
published in full and approved by an independent council. This way, 
Microsoft could not seize control of the the Internet by effectively 
walling off Windows users from the Linux, UNIX, Mac, etc. users of 
the world.
    Fourth, the committee that oversees Microsoft's future conduct 
must have real authority. Microsoft itself should have no say in who 
is appointed to this committee and it should be required to make 
regular, public reports on Microsoft's conduct. Instead, the current 
agreement calls for a committee that is sworn to total secrecy, 
works within Microsoft's headquarters, has two-thirds of its members 
selected by Microsoft itself, and has limited freedom to interview 
employees. What possible deterrent to future violations can this 
provide? The five to seven years of review also seem quite brief 
considering the current case stems from violations of Microsoft's 
last agreement to mend its ways back in 1994.
    By setting any time limit at all, Microsoft is simply encouraged 
to continue its habitual stalling and legal maneuvering until the 
reigns are completely let loose.
    Finally, the current settlement has no provisions for any 
penalty whatsoever. The previous points I've outlined can help 
prevent future abuses of power, but what of taking away some of 
their ill gotten gains? Possibilities include, as Nader suggests, 
divesting them of their browser technology or media player or 
providing support for companies they have illegally tried to 
sabotage.
    Personal computing technology has already become a cornerstone 
of our economy, business practices, and daily lifestyle and it will 
only continue to become more important and more pervasive in our 
lives. Now is the time to set a clear path ahead that will allow 
free competition in this market. A dip in the stock market today, 
that would certainly come following Microsoft's punishment, is 
trivial compared to future decades dominated by this belligerent, 
unremorseful corporation.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Grochowski



MTC-00026203

From: Gerry Kerbyson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly believe that the settlement proposed by the Justice 
Dept. is intolerably unfair to the consumer public and to 
Microsoft's competitors in the PC software applications field. At a 
minimum, the settlement must be modified to rectify Microsoft's 
anti-competitive practice of bundling user applications into its 
acknowledged monopolistic Windows operating system.
    I believe that Microsoft cannot be allowed to combine any 
application features into its OS, either by constraint by the court, 
or by severing Microsoft's OS organization from its application 
organization.
    Gerald M Kerbyson



MTC-00026204

From: David A. Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Hi
    I've scanned with some interest the various documents available 
regarding the legality of Microsoft's business practices. I hope 
that Goverments at both State and Federal level will act together to 
insure that those predatory business practices are discontinued.
    I especially hope that the Courts do no accept in any way 
Microsoft's offer of providing free/reduced cost software and PC's 
to schools as part of any ``penalty''. I am given to 
understand that Apple Computer software runs on a very small amount 
of computers worlwide, saving only that Apple appears to enjoy some 
larger sucess in schools.
    In my opinion, allowing Microsoft to ``force out'' 
Apple computers from schools by offering different computers will 
inevitably lead to an even smaller market share for Apple Computer, 
thereby increasing Microsoft's already overpowering Monopoly power.
    Thank you for your time
    David A. Young



MTC-00026205

From: Edwin R. Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft
12105 Hilltop Drive
Los Altos Hill, CA 94024
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing because I feel that the agreement Microsoft has 
reached with your office warrants settling the government's 
antitrust lawsuit against them. The settlement seems reasonable, and 
the involved parties should have the freedom to move on to more 
pressing matters. I strongly feel that lawyers should not be trying 
to determine what features can be implement in software. Software is 
complex enough without the people who designed the tax code putting 
their hand in.
    Allowing computer manufacturers a greater ability to configure 
Windows to include programs in direct competition with Microsoft's 
is a necessary step and making it it easier for consumers to 
integrate competitor's software into the Windows system is a long 
overdue action. Bet the government should not be what features a in 
a product.
    I urge you to resolve the lawsuit and get on to more important 
cases.
    Sincerely,
    Edwin R. Jones
    01/29/2002 12:18



MTC-00026206

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Some points that I feel are important (I am not a lawyer. I am 
speaking based on what I have read of other peoples'' 
interpretations of the proposed final judgement):
    ``Windows Operating System'' should be defined to be 
any Microsoft product implementing any subset of the Win32 APIs. 
This is important as Microsoft is diversifying their operating 
system product lines beyond their traditional desktop and server 
markets. Therefore, the definition of ``Windows Operating 
System'' should include any and all platforms that the Win32 
APIs are available on now and in the future. The complete Win32 API 
must be made available. This should include alternate entry points 
to functions (if they exist). An independent team should review the 
Windows source code to verify correspondence between the published 
API documentation and the implementation.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to add APIs until this process 
is complete. It would additionally be desireable, although likely 
unimplementable, to have a 3rd party responsible for defining the 
Win32 API. This would be akin to the POSIX and SUS (Single Unix 
Standard) definitions, where a committee defines the API, and 
developers are free to implement it themselves. Developers may 
propose extensions to these APIs, but they are not standards unless 
the committees accept them. Additionally, the final judgment should 
cover any APIs that Microsoft adds after acceptance of said 
judgment. Otherwise, third party developers may find themselves at a 
competitive disadvantage again. No APIs should be withheld from 
public documentation under any circumstances. No conditions should 
be placed on the release of any of this API documentation. All 
intellectual property issues related to any part of any API should 
be made public as part of that API's documentation.
    Microsoft's applications developers (Internet Explorer, Office, 
etc.) should receive the same information as third party software 
developers. Additionally, they should receive it at the same time as 
third party software developers. Should they receive this 
information early, or receive more detailed information, they then 
hold an unfair

[[Page 27772]]

competitive advantage in the software market. Additionally, they 
should be required to go through the same support channels as third 
party software developers, lest they potentially receive 
preferential treatment.
    Justin Wojdacki
    [email protected] (408) 350-5032
    Communications Processors Group--Analog Devices



MTC-00026207

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Joan Schnute
    140 Cedar Lake Trail
    Winston-Salem, NC 27104



MTC-00026208

From: Geoffrey Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In regards to the proposed Ms Settlement and appointment of a 
TC: It is my professional opinion that there is no one that can 
qualify these terms. Any person qualified is by definition a 
``competitor'' or has a ``conflict of 
interest'', due to the nature of the computer/technology 
industry and the reach and control that MS competes in. There is no 
way that a technically proficient ``programming and 
design'' expert can NOT BE in competition with MS at some 
level. This, coupled with the weak oversights proposed amount to 
little more than a slap on the hand for Microsoft. There should be 
NO settlement, that MS was found guilty in the first finding, should 
then proceed to an appropriate punishment. I am in favor of the 
original proposal of breaking up MS, a company this large and with 
obvious disregard for the law, should be broken up. 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
    Geoffrey Scott Miller
    Propeller Head
    Mad Cow Studios
    4758 Forman Avenue, Suite 9
    Toluca Lake, CA 91602
    (818) 623-9626
    (818) 475-1602 fax
    [email protected]
    www.madcowstudios.com
    ``We're outstanding in the field''



MTC-00026209

From: Jerry J OShea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I strongly believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is a 
reasonable compromise and fair to all parties. Please act to end 
this costgly and damaging litigation.
    Respectfully,
    Jeremiah J. O'Shea
    E-Mail address: [email protected]



MTC-00026210

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am a computing professional with 25 years experience. I have 
worked as both a computer hardware designer and software engineer, 
specializing in operating systems. I have worked at many different 
companies in the last 25 years. I have watched Microsoft grow from a 
vendor of PC Basic to its current monopoly position in the industry. 
I feel that absent some basic changes your current remedy will leave 
the US software industry in a very weakened state. In this letter I 
will focus only on the issue of making the cost of Microsoft 
software transparent to the user, as well as making its purchase 
optional. I am asking that you require that the cost of Microsoft 
software be a separate line item on ALL computer systems sold with 
Microsoft software pre-loaded. Currently users do not see the price 
of the Microsoft software they buy, as the Microsoft software is 
bundled in. Still worse, they have no option but to buy the 
software. I am further asking that you ensure that Microsoft not 
outsmart the US Gov't again in this matter; the FTC has tried (and 
failed) several times to resolve this problem. If there is to be a 
competitive software business in the US, these two conditions are a 
minimum requirement. Currently, if I buy a computer system from any 
major vendor, I am forced to pay several hundred dollars for 
Microsoft OS and applications software. I have no choice in this 
purchase. I do not use Microsoft software; I do not want this 
Microsoft software; I have to erase this Microsoft software every 
time I get a new computer. In one case I have spoken with IBM about 
getting a refund on the cost of the Microsoft software. Their 
response: my only option is to not buy an IBM computer. In other 
words, Microsoft has left IBM (and many other companies) with no 
choice but to force customers to pay for Microsoft software, whether 
the customers want it or not. This behaviour has almost killed 
competition in the PC software industry. Years ago, one could buy a 
computer with a choice of pre-loaded software. No longer. The only 
option offered by most vendors is Microsoft. The US gov't has tried, 
and failed, several times to change this situation. In 1995 the US 
Gov't thought it had worked out an agreement with Microsoft to force 
unbundling. The US Gov't was wrong. In fact, the US Gov't has been 
consistently outmaneuvered by Microsoft. The outcome of the current 
trial is one of the last chances we have to save Microsoft 
competition from complete extinction. There is a precedent for this 
type of unbundling. You are not doubt familiar with the unbundling 
of IBM Operating System software from the IBM 360/370 computer 
systems. That forced unbundling resulted in the creation of credible 
competition for IBM, and forced the mainframe industry to move 
forward much faster than would otherwise have happened. Unbundling 
was tough on IBM, but very good for IBM's customers and US 
technological innovation. Please consider my request for unbundling. 
A strong, competitive US software industry is vital to the Nation's 
security. Your current plans will leave us with a monopoly provider 
with almost no competition.
    At the very least, transparency should be the rule when a 
computer system is purchased with software pre-loaded.
    Sincerely
    Ronald G. Minnich
    48 Sumac Lane
    Los Alamos, NM 87544
    505 663 0784



MTC-00026211

From: Arthur E Mari
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Please let us get this case behind us and move forward
    Our country has more important things to focus on than the 
continuous litigation costing much with no rewards except to 
lawyers.
    I implore you to stop this now!
    We need more Microsofts to develop the millions of jobs as it 
has in the past.
    Competition is using litigation to help themselves and no one 
else.
    Thank you.
    Arthur E. Mari

[[Page 27773]]

    P. O. Box 484
    West Dennis, MA 02670-0484
    CC:MSFIN@mic@inetgw



MTC-00026212

From: james williamson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    I have been in the computer industry for forty years and I 
believe the turnaround in the Microsoft case is a gross injustice 
and will hurt the market for both hardware and software. I believe 
that Microsoft lobbying just adds to the selling out of America to 
the highest bidder please reconsider. There is a great amount of 
real anger among my associates leading to pledges not to buy another 
Microsoft product. this anger could hurt an industry that is already 
scraping bottom.
    Sincerely Jim Williamson



MTC-00026213

From: Jon Cochran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd just like to weigh in with my comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I seem to recall that an attempt to curb 
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices was attempted a few years 
ago, and they (microsoft) did nothing to keep their end of the 
agreement.
    Please make sure it's done right this time.
    Thank you,
    Jon Cochran



MTC-00026214

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:55pm
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,
    Ben and Jane Balzer
    PMB 111, 1750 Highway 126
    Florence, OR 97439



MTC-00026215

From: Kevin Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    Under the Tunney Act, I am writing to provide my comments on the 
proposed antitrust settlement with Microsoft. I am asking that you 
not agree to the proposed antitrust settlement and instead seek 
either a structural remedy or more stringent and open-ended 
behavioral remedies. I am in charge of Information Technology at a 
small aerospace business located in Southern California, and I feel 
that we have suffered due to Microsoft's illegal behavior in 
preventing competition to its products. Their past behavior, 
especially in flaunting the provisions of the 1995 consent decree 
and in refusing to admit any wrongdoing in the current case, gives 
me little hope that the weak provisions I have seen in the proposed 
consent decree will have any material effect on their behavior. We 
run Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office on all of our desktop 
computers. The use of Microsoft's proprietary Word, Excel, and 
PowerPoint formats as de-facto standards for information exchange 
(even by our U.S. Government clients) ensures their continued 
importance for the foreseeable future. However, I understand that no 
part of the settlement requires Microsoft to release any information 
about file formats, implying that there will be no competition to 
Microsoft on our desktops in the years to come. I would prefer to 
see either a structural remedy separating Microsoft's operating 
system and application businesses, or a strong behavioral 
requirement to release all file formats for interoperability 
purposes.
    The possible extension of Microsoft's desktop monopoly onto our 
server computers is of even greater concern to me. Our servers 
currently use the Linux operating system and Samba file serving 
software. These programs have worked well for us and are a credible 
alternative to Microsoft's server software. However, the proposed 
settlement gives no standing to the general public and non-profit 
organizations which are an important part of the development and 
support of these programs. The settlement also has too many 
loopholes in defining what interoperability information Microsoft 
must release. If Microsoft is allowed to withhold interoperability 
information from any interested party then they can effectively use 
their desktop monopoly to prevent an interoperable server program 
from being produced; their proprietary extensions to the 
standardized Kerberos authentication protocol are a good example of 
their willingness to use their desktop monopoly to their advantage 
in the realm of server software.
    Please do not allow a repetition of what occurred in 1995. Small 
businesses like ours cannot afford to have Microsoft expand its 
monopoly further and limit our ability to purchase and use software 
and services in a competitive environment.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Moore
    Kevin C. Moore, Ph.D. (V) 909 392 3158
    Advanced Projects Research, Inc. (F) 909 392 3156
    1925 McKinley Avenue, Suite B 
[email protected]
    La Verne, CA 91750



MTC-00026216

From: lew berish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
10213 Napa Valley Drive
Frisco, Texas 75035
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The terms of the 
settlement are fair and a safeguard is in place to make sure that 
they are followed. All that is needed is for the government to 
accept the agreement. The terms of the settlement are more than 
fair, Microsoft has actually agreed to terms that extend well beyond 
the products and procedures there were actually at issue in the 
suit. As a term of the settlement a technical committee will be 
created to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. I 
feel that the terms are fair and a safeguard is in place to make 
sure they are followed.
    The only thing left before putting this three-year-old issue to 
rest is for the Department of Justice to accept the agreement. I 
urge you to accept the settlement and let the technology industry 
move forward.
    Sincerely,
    Lew Berish
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026217

From: Terry Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Go with the settlement.
    This has gone on long enough and done little but cost money. 
Let's get back to business and the marketplace and out of the 
courts. There are seemingly two groups fighting MS. Its competitors 
(who might have a biased position) and the computing community who 
have an irrational hatred of MS (I know having been in the business 
for 25 years and a dedicated Mac user (but not an MS hater since I 
could never see the point)).
    The consumer hasn't been helped by this at all. MS has 
traditionally been the low price leader (I remember well when OS/2 
cost 600$ and Windows $79 and when Apple charged 2x the PC rate for 
everything it produced).
    It is way past time for this to stop.
    Terry



MTC-00026218

From: benson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:04pm
Subject: USAGBenson--Peter--1071--0124
Attorney General John Ashcroft
January 25,2002
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would lie to briefly explain some of my feeling about the 
Microsoft antitrust case. I

[[Page 27774]]

am a user and supporter of Microsoft's products. I cannot say that I 
agree with every decision Microsoft has made in the past, but 
business does not equal benevolence. I do agree that there was merit 
behind the issues that brought about the case, but that was three 
years and countless taxpayers'' dollars ago. It is time to put 
this matter to rest. If the settlement agreement will allow that 
happen, then I support it. Under the terms of the settlement, 
Microsoft has agreed to stop retaliating against those that design 
or promote non-Microsoft programs. Also, Microsoft will allow 
computer makers to configure Windows so as to promote those 
programs. A technical oversight committee will ensure that Microsoft 
complies with the terms of the settlement. I do not see the need for 
further federal action. Nine states have already approved the 
agreement, and Microsoft is negotiating with the remaining states 
reach an agreement. I fear that some of the states are using 
consumer protection as a veil for return on investment, and the case 
may never end. I hope that your office is watching the states'' 
motives as actively as you are watching Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Benson
    PO Box 10
    San Patricio, NM 88348



MTC-00026219

From: Ryan C. Stehr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:06pm
Subject: what to do
    I think, that to punish microsoft, the ruling of the court 
should require that only software by the computer manufacturer shold 
be allowed to be pre-installed on a computer. In other words: if you 
don't make the software, you have to sell your computer naked.



MTC-00026220

From: David Joerg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:08pm
Subject: proposed Microsoft Settlement has serious problems
    I find I must agree especially with the comments in a letter 
dated November 5, 2001 from Ralph Nader to Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly:
    We also find the agreement wanting in several other areas. It is 
astonishing that the agreement fails to provide any penalty for 
Microsoft's past misdeeds, creating both the sense that Microsoft is 
escaping punishment because of its extraordinary political and 
economic power, and undermining the value of antitrust penalties as 
a deterrent. Second, the agreement does not adequately address the 
concerns about Microsoft's failure to abide by the spirit or the 
letter of previous agreements, offering a weak oversight regime that 
suffers in several specific areas. Indeed, the proposed alternative 
dispute resolution for compliance with the agreement embraces many 
of the worst features of such systems, operating in secrecy, lacking 
independence, and open to undue influence from Microsoft.
    Also:
    What is surprising is that the US Department of Justice allowed 
Microsoft to place so many provisions in the agreement that can be 
used to undermine the free software movement. Note for example that 
under J.1 and J.2 of the proposed final order, Microsoft can 
withhold technical information from third parties on the grounds 
that Microsoft does not certify the ``authenticity and 
viability of its business,'' while at the same time it is 
describing the licensing system for Linux as a ``cancer'' 
that threatens the demise of both the intellectual property rights 
system and the future of research and development.
    And:
    Another core concern with the proposed final order concerns the 
term of the agreement and the enforcement mechanisms. We believe a 
five-to-seven year term is artificially brief, considering that this 
case has already been litigated in one form or another since 1994, 
and the fact that Microsoft's dominance in the client OS market is 
stronger today than it has ever been, and it has yet to face a 
significant competitive threat in the client OS market. An 
artificial end will give Microsoft yet another incentive to delay, 
meeting each new problem with an endless round of evasions and 
creative methods of circumventing the pro-competitive aspects of the 
agreement. Only if Microsoft believes it will have to come to terms 
with its obligations will it modify its strategy of anticompetitive 
abuses.
    Thank you for your attention! Please do the right thing for 
America, and live up to the American tradition of breaking 
monopolies and enforcing the law.
    Sincerely,
    --David Joerg
    New York, NY
    [email protected]



MTC-00026221

From: cookie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to be finished with all of the frivolous lawsuits 
against Microsoft--one of America's finest companies. The most 
recent filing by AOL/Time Warner--through its subsidiary, 
Netscape Communications Corporation--is absurd. Enough is 
enough. These lawsuits are blatant attempts by the parties filing 
suit to ``share'' in Microsoft's financial success because 
they are greedy and incapable of honorable competition.
    As a consumer, I have both IE and Netscape browsers. I use them 
both--depending on my mood. I have never been forced to use one 
or the other. If one cannot follow instructions for choosing the 
primary browser, perhaps one should amuse oneself with activities 
that don't require a computer.
    As a taxpayer, I am outraged at the ``legal'' 
shenanigans--or circus, if you prefer--and the expenses 
that will be passed to the citizens of our great country. I believe 
there are far more pressing issues for the DOJ to handle at this 
most crucial time in our history.
    Sincerely,
    A. C. Poh



MTC-00026222

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:09pm
Subject: Re settlement.
    To whom it may condern. The settlement for Microsoft is really 
necessary at this time. We have many problems in our country but 
Microsoft is not one of them. The spirit of this country is kindled 
by people who have ideas that bring better methods and ease to all 
of us. Microsoft has done that and others can do the same ina free 
country.The country needsMicrosoft in full stride to help overcome 
our recession and put people back to work. With due respect to all, 
Karen Small [email protected]



MTC-00026223

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This should come to a halt! For the good of the country and for 
all of us, let's call a stop to the harassing of Microsoft.



MTC-00026224

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen, Breaking up Micrrosoft is no help to those of us who 
only became PC users because of the ease of Microsofts Versions 3.1 
and 95 and 98. The features of Microsoft 98, which I use, work 
smothly. Incompatibility will certainly result if you force others 
to provide the microsoft features which we find so easy to use. I am 
not to worried about the other PC providers not enjoying a so called 
fair market. This should be a free market and those with the best 
product ought not to be hamstrung by lawyers and the courts. 
Microsoft developed their code. Why should they give it away as some 
seem to desire. I am a user and I want to continue to purchase my 
PCs with all the Microsoft features. Warren Piper, Sun City Center, 
Fl.



MTC-00026225

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:14pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Get off Microsoft's case. If it was'nt for them we would not be 
as far as we are technology-wise. LEAVE THEM ALONE. ENOUGH ALREADY.
    Sandra Hare Goldbeck



MTC-00026226

From: Zach Kaplan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:21pm
    Renata B. Hesse--
    I am writing to voice my comments about the settlement between 
the United States and Microsoft. Microsoft should be praised instead 
of punished for its business practices. They're fierce competition 
has brought me amazing innovations in the field of information 
technology. I use Microsoft products every single day. As I 
graduated from College I started a company that build custom 
software. We were able to utilize tools Microsoft provides for 
developers in our products. With a very small development team we 
were able to create software used by small businesses and fortune 
500 companies.

[[Page 27775]]

We were recently bought out and plan to start a new company. Each 
day I use Microsoft Word, Internet Explorer, Windows, and other 
Microsoft tools I am reminded of the thousands of people that 
devoted countless hours of their lives to create this value that has 
changed the world for the better. I resent the government's 
characterization of me as a helpless victim who cannot choose 
software that is useful to you. I do choose to use different 
software vendors. Macromedia's web development tools are better than 
Microsoft's so our company chose to purchase them instead. I do not 
think that the government has any right to decide what software I 
use in my computer. I also resent the idea that a successful 
business and its products are a threat to anyone. We worked very 
hard on our business to create value we could trade with others. 
Although our company was much smaller our customers still chose to 
purchase our products. Also I have read that this whole issue with 
Microsoft originated with one of Microsoft's unsuccessful 
competitors. If our competitors were allowed to set the rules for 
the markets in which we provided more value than them it would be an 
injustice.
    I studied abroad a few years ago and expereinced first hand that 
in other countries when politicians protect some businesses from 
others is a dangerous policy, leading to corruption and economic 
disaster. I felt proud to be an American when I witnessed this 
activity. I hope you will protect our liberties from this kind of 
activity. Looking foward I wish to see an America where success is 
not throttled but embraced. I want a free America where anyone that 
chooses to think rationally and work hard can create and trade value 
with others. This is truly the American dream. I feel very strongly 
that Microsoft has a right to the intellectual property it created 
with its employees hard work. It is our great government's job is to 
protect this right, not to take it away.
    Thank you for reading my comments,
    Zach Kaplan



MTC-00026227

From: Lenore Horner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement doesn't make sense to me for a 
number of reasons. It proposes ``punishing'' Microsoft by 
letting it get its foot in the door through donated software. It 
doesn't seem to properly regulate the problematic behaviors. 
Consider for example the summary points below. per http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#abe
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs.
    This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against smaller OEMs, 
including important regional ``white box'' OEMs, if they 
offer competing products.
    Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances--in effect, discounts--to OEMs. For 
instance, Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based 
on the number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems 
sold by that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas, such as office software or ARM-
compatible operating systems.
    One of Microsoft's more reprehensible modes of operation is that 
of bully: sell my stuff, my way and only my way or I'll put you out 
of business. The settlement fails to fully and uniformly protect 
companies from Microsoft's tactics. Why is it acceptable for 
Microsoft to use pressure tactics on little guys just because 
they're not top 20? The permission of Microsoft to continue its 
current licensing practice of charging on the basis of potential 
machines using the software rather than actual machines using the 
software is permission to charge for non-existent services. This is 
something that should be explicitly prohibited for all companies. 
One does not after all go to the store and buy as much juice as 
biologists have determined the people in your household could 
conceivably drink in some set period of time, rather one buys the 
amount one expects to use and buys more if more is needed. The 
argument that software can be pirated won't wash since one is 
presumed innocent until proven guilty. The present Microsoft 
practice not only presumes guilt but does not even admit of a 
procedure for proving innocence.
    Lastly, given Microsoft's past history, it is imperative that 
the settlement have clear and potent means of enforcement embodied 
in the agreement as opposed to mere investigative powers. Thanks for 
``listening''
    Lenore Horner



MTC-00026228

From: Kathleen Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Jan. 26, 2002
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft does nothing to lessen 
the stranglehold this company has on the software industry of this 
country much as the ancient medieval guilds in past history. The 
settlement is a bad idea as it does little to allow real innovations 
to occur in the industry be comletely scrapped and overhauled.
    Kathleen Turner
    [email protected]



MTC-00026229

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi, I support the judgement already made against Microsoft. 
Please do not impose any more penalty upon them. Merton L. Thornton



MTC-00026231

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr.Ashcroft:
    As an independent computer consultant, I am writing to express 
my support of Microsoft. Much of my daily work is done with 
Microsoft's software, including Windows NT, Office, FrontPage and 
Visual Basic.
    I have had much success using Microsoft products in working on 
large projects for my clients. I was never forced to use Microsoft's 
products, as I had other options. However, Microsoft just happened 
to offer the best product on the market. I never considered 
Microsoft exercised any anticompetitive monopolistic influence on 
me, and I feel this lawsuit was a waste of time and money.
    Now that Microsoft and the government have reached agreement, I 
think all litigation regarding these cases??? issues need to end. 
Microsoft agreed to the establishment of a technical committee to 
monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement and to assist 
with resolving any disputes. Hasn???t the court ruled that is 
enough? Aren't the states pursuing further litigation because of 
influences from special interest groups? Let's put this antitrust 
case to bed. There are far more pressing issues that the Government 
needs to focus on, such as reviving the economy and stimulating the 
creation of more jobs.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Lansman



MTC-00026232

From: GARABED HOVHANESIAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir :
    The Microsoft settlement is a good settlement and is for 
everyone.
    Thanks.
    Sincerely,
    Nancy Hovhanesian



MTC-00026233

From: Daniel Lee
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/26/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    My Name is Daniel Lee of San Mateo, CA, I am a professional 
computer programmer. I feel very strongly that the current Proposed 
Final Judgement (PFJ) is insufficient to prevent further abuses by 
Microsoft and fails to punish Microsoft for past misdeeds.
    Many have pointed out problems with the PFJ's sections 
concerning the API's with regard to their definition, distribution 
and documentation. I wish to point out the main tool through which 
Microsoft has illegally maintained their monopoly.
    One of the most fundamental tenets of U.S. Anti-trust (Clayton 
Act, 1914) law is that the holder of an essential resource (a 
railroad trunk or other monopoly) cannot use this hold to restrain 
trade. The Clayton Act of 1914 specifically prohibits exclusive 
dealing and similar anticompetitive acts. Microsoft, by virtue of 
its posession of the Microsoft Windows operating system, through 
restrictive licensing has specifically prohibited the purchase and 
installation of potential competitors by OEM's. In Feburary of 1999, 
the CEO of Be, Inc., a potential

[[Page 27776]]

competitor to Microsoft Windows in the OS arena, offerred PC makers 
their BeOS operating system for free. Many PC manufacturers 
expressed interest, after all, they could then offer their computers 
with a added value for very little expense themselves. But only one 
(Hitachi) eventually installed the OS on their computers, and then 
so thoroughly hidden that it required more than 10 steps to start up 
the BeOS. The current PFJ fails to prohibit these and other 
anticompetitive practices by Microsoft towards OEMs. Specifically, 
the PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
personal comptuers containing a competing OS but no Microsoft 
operating system. In view of this deficiency and the others pointed 
out in Dan Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html) I have reached the conclusion that the Proposed 
Final judgement, as written, would allow Microsoft to continue its 
significant anticompetitive practices. The Proposed Final Judgement 
is not in the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Lee
    San Mateo, CA
    Senior Software Engineer



MTC-00026234

From: Larry Barone
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/26/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    I am an owner of a small engineering services business which has 
been operating now for the past 25 years. I am writing this letter 
from this perspective and in particular to comment on the events of 
the past few years regarding Microsoft, and to also offer my 
thoughts as a consumer on my opinion of Microsoft as a company, 
their business practices, and how I view them as a consumer of their 
products.
    I have been watching with much interest, the progress of the 
lawsuits againsed Microsoft over the past few years. Initially, I 
was of the opinion that it seemed to be an unusual alliance between 
government, and Microsoft's competitors. I could understand the 
desire of their competitors to gain leverage againsed Microsoft 
whatever way they could, but was surprised that they were able to 
enlist the aid of the government in their effort. However, as the 
case progressed, I was persuaded that some of Microsoft's practices 
were probably subject to criticism with some remediation being in 
order.
    However, I have another way of looking at all of this since I am 
a committed consumer of their products, which is to attempt to 
measure what the net benefit has been to the consumer of the all the 
activities of Microsoft for the past two decades. If the experience 
of my small company is any measure of the true value that Microsoft 
products have brought to the small businesses of this country, the 
net value to the economy of this country has been enhanced beyond 
measure. For the first five years of operating this business, large 
investments in computers in excess of $60,000 resulted in only the 
marginal ability to do word processing. However, in the early 
1980's, with the advent of the personal computer, powered by 
Microsoft operating systems and applications software by Microsoft 
and other suppliers, our business model was completely automated and 
revolutionized. In the intervening years, we have witnessed and 
benefited from an increasing level of integration of applications 
which have been offered at a cost which goes beyond affordable. In 
most cases, the price of the current Microsoft small business office 
automation offerings is under priced when we measure the value it 
brings to our enterprise. Today that same $60,000 will purchase 
capabilities which have been conservatively estimated to be worth 
100 times the original value. Another perspective about Microsoft 
which seems to be overlooked at least by the media in their 
reporting, is that unquestionably, Microsoft understands who their 
primary customer is--the consumer and small business. Their 
competitors pay lip service to us but typically have their primary 
focus on the big corporate and institutional accounts. And 
regardless of what can be said about their business practices, one 
of the major reasons for their success is the fact that they are 
very focused on the needs of their primary customer. I believe that 
the current settlement which has been agreed to needs to be ratified 
for the reason, that I believe that the recent legal struggle will 
have a chilling effect on Microsoft, regardless of the eventual 
details of the settlement. They will be restrained from behavior 
which will be in any way interpreted as stifling competition. 
However, going forward with a settlement is also important, as a 
signal and precedent to other greedy self interested competitors who 
would be motivated to get in court what they cannot achieve in the 
open market. I urge you to ratify the current settlement agreement.
    Thank you for considering my comments and opinions.
    Larry Barone
    President
    South Coast Systems, Inc.
    2110 E. 1st St.
    Santa Ana, CA 92705



MTC-00026235

From: Paul Hubert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement not merely exceedingly bad, but a 
unique GIFT to a huge corporation .-.-. just wonderful 
.-.-.
    I can only assume that the Federal government and its attorneys 
are either blind, deaf, and completely moronic .-.-. or 
have been paid off handsomly under the table.
    Congratulations on becoming one with the Living Dead!



MTC-00026236

From: Nigel Gamble
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is a very bad idea. I do not 
see how it will restore competition and effective consumer choice in 
the personal computer operating system market.
    In particular, it excludes the open source development community 
from consideration completely. Freely available operating systems 
such as Linux or FreeBSD which are able to run Windows applications 
would provide very real competitors to the Windows monopoly, but 
Microsoft does not disclose information about its application 
programming interfaces, file formats and communication protocols 
which would allow these operating systems to run Windows 
applications. A settlement which enforced this would go a long way 
to opening the personal computer operating system market to real 
competition, giving consumers a real choice at last.
    Nigel Gamble
    Operating System Software Engineer & Linux kernel 
contributor.
    Mountain View, CA, USA.



MTC-00026237

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:25pm
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,
    Robert McCroskey
    2004 Prestancia Lane
    Sun City Center, FL 33573-6915



MTC-00026238

From: JnJRanch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice:
    I feel it is time to settle the Microsoft case and move on. I 
feel it is a detrement to the country and our economy to continue to 
drag this suit out.
    Jeanne Jacobs ([email protected])



MTC-00026239

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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

[[Page 27777]]

has gone on long enough. Microsoft has already agreed to hide its 
Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; the fact is, this case 
against Microsoft is little more than ``welfare'' for 
Netscape and other Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel going to 
those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the computer user. This is 
just another method for states to get free money, and a terrible 
precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer technology, 
but all sorts of 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 Sullivan
    4389 L. Fayetevl. Rd.
    Sharpsburg, GA 30277



MTC-00026240

From: Martin Joseph
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement comment.
    Sirs and Madame's,
    I would like to add my voice to those who feel MS is once again 
trying to thumb there nose at DOJ and the rest of the computer 
industry while using the so called ``settlement'' as a 
tool for further destroying the competitions business and extending 
there monopoly power into new markets.
    Obviously the ``feel good'' concept of donating to 
education is destroyed by the fact that:
    1) They are trying to damage Apple Computers business in this 
market.
    2) The 1 Billion figure is a joke with regards to Microsoft's 
actual costs/benefits.
    3) They are continuing to behave in the same illegal fashion (ie 
.NET, Windows XP, Xbox, etc.).
    Microsoft was bred on a tradition of paranoia and dirty 
dealings, the stories in the industry abound. They gained an 
overnight monopoly based on the market clout of the IBM brand in 
1981, when IBM entered the market and (foolishly) allowed MS to 
license the same software's (dos/basic etc.) that they were 
licensing to others(compaq, dell, hp, emachines, gateway, etc). This 
created the current condition of hundreds of vendors competing with 
products that all use the identical Microsoft OS as there critical 
element.
    I feel that any equitable settlement would involve two parts.
    1) a large CASH payment (on the order of 10 billion). Lord knows 
this is still a drop in the bucket for them.
    2) Oversight of there day to day operations by independent 
persons.
    They need to be PUNISHED in way that makes them feel it, and 
forces them to change there attitude and operations.
    Thank you,
    Martin Joseph
    10553 Alton Ave. NE
    Seattle WA, 98125
    206 363 1183



MTC-00026241

From: Paul Gabriel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Just adding my disapproval to the proposed settlement. I'd like 
to see more source disclosure. Give this thing some real teeth 
instead of barely a slap on the wrist. Get rid of all the loopholes 
where Microsoft gets to decide what they will and more importantly 
will not disclose.
    Paul Gabriel
    85 Lowell Place
    Santa Cruz, CA 95060



MTC-00026242

From: Bill(038)Kim Worden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I am a concerned citizen voicing my negative feelings about the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft. Our nation's sense of fair play 
and honest competition have been the fuel that propelled us to the 
status of world leader during the industrial, space, and now 
technology dependent age. Microsoft has played a large part in 
advancing technology and deserves all the credit for this. However, 
it does not give them the right to violate the rules set in place to 
advance new innovations and ensure a healthy economy that relies on 
competition. Please, do your part in protecting the rights of fair 
play.
    Thank you for your time,
    God bless,
    William J. Worden, DDS
    551 Napa Valley Lane
    Crestview Hills, KY 41017
    (859)426-1068



MTC-00026243

From: drbeto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:27pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    Enough is enough, let them go on providing just what the public 
wants. For me and my household, we are completely satisfied with 
Microsoft just as they are, let the government better spend their 
time chasing after illegal aliens and terrorists, and stop trying to 
bring down the best thing that has ever happened to John Q. Public.
    Robert Thomas,
    A satisfied User



MTC-00026244

From: P W Mueller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Microsoft settlement.
    I am a computer owner, user and curser. More importantly I am a 
Microsoft product user. The reason I use Microsoft products, 
windows, office and word and other support conveniences is because 
these programs work! The reason I do not use other programs is 
simply ``they do not work'' I know that because I have a 
box full of them and I spent far more in money and frustration for 
each of them than I paid or endure for Microsoft soft ware .
    I know the difference between good tools and bad because 1938 
was not a good year for computing tools or an open minds to wacky 
ideas that employed the use of the wind to transport, record and 
store data.-.-.-. Yes I believed in the telephone 
but just barely. Like magic we were told we could instantly retrieve 
and manipulation documents stored somewhere on a main frame and 
paper would be a eliminated or possibly eviscerated to quote the 
State department. To say I was opposed is an understatement but in 
the late 1980's I was wired with the state of the art Rainbow 
computing system. My office was now efficient! My people could now 
do in days what previously took hours by hand. I was now part of the 
future supervising people that hated me and their job. With a single 
key stroke or blip in the power or a lightening strike days of work 
was lost for ever. Since those days I have used many generations of 
bad programing and worse programs bought by the ``DOD'' If 
I forced myself to remember bad memories of my youth I could 
probably list a number of them but the one I remember most was a $4 
million dollar system that was brought into our department The 
company unloaded the system and left, we sent people to off to a 
school in the south that arrived at a empty ware house we never 
heard another word from the company. God alone knows how many 
Millions of dollars was picked from the pockets of the Government 
but not a single word was ever uttered by the ``DOJ'' 
pursuing this theft of public money.
    The point of that boring dissertation is that somewhere 
Microsoft came along and some bright young man installed an 
unauthorized copy and wonders of wonders the promise of the future 
became a reality. We could do all those things that failed with all 
those other systems.
    Now my question to the ``DOJ'' is why is the 
``DOJ'' so hot on the trail of Microsoft? A company that 
produces a good product, that supports the community, the State, and 
the Nation as well as poor countries around the world? Yet by 
admission the ``DOJ'' does not have time to prosecute, 
arraign or even pursue companies and corporations that are absolute 
frauds. Janet Reno was proud to announce to the world that she had 
13 ``DOJ'' lawyers in Washington DC working full time 
going after Microsoft and a complete office of the ``DOJ'' 
some where in the west working on this one case FULL TIME yet she 
and ``DOJ'' were so under staffed and undermanned that it 
was not possible to even arrest known criminals, the telemarketer's 
simply stealing from people, the travelers that move about the 
country that go as far as forcing the elderly to pay for unwanted 
and worthless construction and repairs, drug dealers, gang's, to 
hardly say anything about the ENRONS! Or what we know now as the 
true cost of porous borders This list can go on for a very long 
time. Sadly the ``DOJ'' knows all this, none of this is 
news or even new to them or any one else. So again I ask why is the 
``DOJ'' wasting my tax dollars to come to the aid of a 
number of ``Johnny come lately's `` that can not produce a 
quality product who's motives are clearly to cash in on what 
Microsoft started from the ground up with a few bucks and guts and 
neglecting the real problems that are a plague to our society. When 
Microsoft supports a communities it does so with a dollar at full 
value unlike the

[[Page 27778]]

.010 cents on the dollar a community might get form a government 
program, when Microsoft gives money, property and training to the 
community it does so with money it earned unlike the government.
    The existence of Microsoft is a United States success story that 
should be supported not vilified! .-.-. Bill Gates has 
not run to a foreign country to produce his wares. He started here 
and so far has stayed here and it baffles me as to why the 
``DOJ'' is so intent on destroying an American success 
story. It certainly is not for the reasons stated by the 
``DOJ'' ``consumer protection'' I paid 
``$398 plus for Corel's word perfect'' (a good program) I 
paid $98 for Microsoft windows and another $89 for Microsoft word ( 
combined far more useful than Corel's program) So who do I need 
protection from? Microsoft! I don't believe so! So.. to the 
department of justice once again I say what is going on? I see this 
pursuit of Microsoft as a vendetta that was clearly stated to the 
nation and media by Judge Jackson, Janet Reno, and Klien 
.-.-. and that is a fleecing of the tax payers forcing 
us to pay for the destruction of a good company and the gifting of 
funds and rewards to companies that produce inferior products. 
Companies that want Bill Gates and Microsoft to give them the keys 
to success as directed by the DOJ'' and this is wrong!
    Sincerely Paul W. Mueller



MTC-00026245

From: Stephen Estes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I do hope the DOJ does what ever is possible to get the 
Microsoft settlement closed and done with. I am a software developer 
and am amazed at the array of law suits maligned against Microsoft 
by companies with vastly inferior products. The government in 
alliance with these jackals have encouraged this deluge. The latest: 
AOL, seeking damages for Netscape, a horrible product. Just get a 
competent software engineer to compare the public APIs of the two 
products. Netscape's is a mess and only a fool would choose to 
target it for development over Internet Explorer. And AOL squawking 
about closed monopolies? Ask them why it is not possible to 
interface with their messenger. Compare this policy to Microsoft's 
.NET W3C sanctioned architecture where all interfaces are 
discoverable with a simple invocation of a URL.
    Please, end the travesty and let the industry once again freely 
evolve. Allow us to develop and integrate our products into freely 
emerging standards without the fear of federal impediment. And if 
you must meddle, force AOL to open their products, specifically 
messaging, to the newly standardized interfaces.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Estes
    Software Engineer
    225 Moody
    Lufkin, TX 75901



MTC-00026246

From: Carl Youngdahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I, a US citizen, believe that the Proposed Final Judgment in the 
Microsoft Settlement fails to prevent detrimental anticompetitive 
practices, hinders constructive competition from compatible 
operating systems, and is not in the public interest. The settlement 
should be reworked to effectively address these problems in an 
enforceable way, taking into account Microsoft's position, power, 
history, and tendencies.
    Most sincerely,
    Dr. Carl J. Youngdahl
    [email protected]
    CC:Carl Youngdahl



MTC-00026247

From: Don Stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ;
    I urge you to impose severe restrictions on Microsoft to prevent 
them from taking advantage of their ill-gotten market share to the 
detriment of the general public. They should not be allowed to 
``bully'' their competitors as they have in the past. As a 
Java programmer and a Macintosh user, I have suffered doubly from 
their past anti-competitive practices. I urge you to restore 
competition to the computer industry by imposing comprehensive 
restrictions and then following through with close monitoring.
    Sincerely,
    Don Stephens
    908 SE Cora
    Portland, OR 97202
    [email protected]



MTC-00026248

From: M.X. Rees
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Ms. Hesse-
    While nonchalantly frittering away my day at work surfing the 
internet looking for news about the Enron debacle, I somehow 
stumbled onto a business news site, and ultimately, after a strange 
series of twists and turns on the Al Gore Soopahighway, ended up on 
the US vs. Microsoft site. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm I hadn't realized I was so timely with my search, since 
the Tunney Act stipulations expire here in a couple of days. Since 
this is a very democratic republic (viz. Tocqueville), the public 
actually gets to give its input on the ``Public 
Interest.'' Excellent.
    I want to come out and say that Microsoft has frankly been on 
the receiving end of the proverbial shaft. This settlement is 
insane. It scavenges over the intellectual property of Microsoft 
like vultures in the desert. At the same time, we tell our comrades 
in China about our committment to private 
property--particularly intellectual property--and how it 
is necessary to respect those fundamental rights if they wish to 
join the WTO. I am sure that there are others who gloat at the irony 
of how we begin to promote software piracy (and hacking) just as we 
warn other countries that we value the rule of law to promote 
success.
    Next, changing the power of licensing from the licenser (a 
software trust) to the licensees (an OEM trust)is a great idea that 
won't change a darn thing for consumers. Saying that this has 
anything to do with the public is disingenuous at best. The OEMs, so 
oppressed by that demon Microsoft, include the poverty-stricken 
firms of Dell, IBM, and Compaq. The same vow of poverty holds true 
for Sun Microsystems, AOL, and Oracle, who also are prime litigants 
in the trial of how Microsoft is a sole corporate tyrant. Sun in 
particular is the most amusing, since on its website it complains 
about Microsoft having ``monopoly power,'' while at the 
same time putting this ironic tagline at the end: ``[Sun is] a 
leading provider of industrial-strength hardware, software and 
services that power the Internet and allow companies worldwide to 
``.com'' their businesses. With $13 billion [yes, Billion] 
in annual revenues, Sun can be found in more than 170 countries. 
-.-.'' http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/
2000-04/sunflash.20000403.4.html
    It doesn't really seem to me that Microsoft is pushing these 
guys out of the market.
    I realize that the good AG was put in a bad position politically 
and had to compromise--dropping the case like bricks would have 
been rather hard to justify to a great deal of loud and important 
people like the Senate Judiciary Committee and the AOL/Sun/Oracle 
cartel. Due to the way Washington works, it's very difficult to 
avoid that. Still, if there was any justice in the world, we'd drop 
this suit altogether, and have President Bush use some peculiar 
anachronistic executive pardoning power to vindicate Microsoft. Of 
course, if there was justice in the world, we'd also hang John 
Walker Lindh at high noon.
    Thank you for hearing my thoughts on this important matter. Keep 
up the good work at the DOJ, and tell Mr. Ashcroft to hang in 
there--AG has to be one of the most difficult jobs on Earth 
these days.
    Yours,
    Matthew Ch. Rees
    4509 Brandywine St. NW
    Washington DC 20016
    26 January 2001



MTC-00026249

From: Bose, Landric A.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is wholly unsatisfactory, 
and as a taxpayer I would be highly displeased with a 
``punishment'' of allowing Microsoft to increase it's 
market share, which is what this suit was concerned with in the 
first place. If the United States is truly comitted to promoting a 
fair marketplace, this is the occasion in which to do it.
    Thank you for your time.
    -Landric A. Bose
    Houston, TX



MTC-00026250

From: Paul Luczka
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 27779]]

Date: 1/26/02 4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please don't allow onerous regulation and endless litigation to 
gum up private enterprise and customer choice.
    Thank you.
    Paul Luczka



MTC-00026251

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:39pm
Subject: DOJ Letters
Letters sent to doj and Senator Santorm



MTC-00026251 0001

Letters sent to doj and Senator Santorm



MTC-00026251--0002

01/29/2002 12:21 !



MTC-00026252

From: Bob Bressler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft
Re: Microsoft settlement.
Oak Hill South 302
Penn Valley PA 19072
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20530 Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    We are writing about the Microsoft case. This issue has been 
going on far too long. Microsoft is a good innovative company which 
is being hurt because of, among other things, the amount of company 
resources required in this seemingly endless effort. Please do your 
best to uphold the settlement and ensure the end of this mess.
    The settlement is fair, calling for more sharing of technology 
secrets among competitors and easier access to non-Microsoft 
programs in the Windows operating system. These will ensure that 
there is fair competition in the technology industry, which was the 
main issue of this lawsuit. Please respect the proposed settlement; 
it is in the best interest of everyone involved.
    Sincerely,
    Robert A. & Elayne B. Bressler



MTC-00026253

From: Evelyn Cote
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/26/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Evelyn Cote
13 Creigmont Lane
Fairfield Glade, TN 38558
January 26, 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,
    Evelyn Cote



MTC-00026254

From: Ian Filson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ian Filson
31161 RPO Way, Rutgers, the
State University of New Jersey
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
January 26, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ian Filson



MTC-00026255

From: SatGuru
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To whom it may concern,
    Proposed settlement is too lenient.
    I feel that the proposed settlement does not impose enough 
sanctions and restrictions on Microsoft. The settlement falls far 
short of penalizing Microsoft for their unfair use of monopoly power 
in the past and does little to restrain their future use of their 
monopoly position. Further, their proposal to ``pay back'' 
to the community by ``giving'' Microsoft products to 
schools and other public institutions (but not give support) is 
ridiculous. It would only extend their monopoly further without 
costing them a single red-cent. On the other hand .. if they 
refunded all payments made to Microsoft from public institutions for 
past product purchases and support .. now THAT would be meaningful. 
Microsoft is clearly a monopoly and clearly uses monopoly power to 
bully its way around the marketplace to push viable competitors into 
closing their doors.
    Microsoft should be forced to choose to be either a platform 
vendor or an application vendor. It was wrong for them to assume 
both roles. By 1995 at least, and probably earlier, they should have 
spun off the applications business (Office products, primarily) into 
a separate independent business. By keeping both, they effectively 
shutdown (or shutout) most business application vendors, by 
competing unfairly. For other vendors to make their own operating 
systems is like suggesting that other phone companies run duplicate 
wires and telephone poles in every neighborhood. When an operating 
system becomes that pervasive it should be treated like a public 
utility, like part of the national infrastructure, not owned by 
anyone, but supported by the public, for the public good.
    Sincerely,
    Sat Guru S Khalsa
    21 Baltimore St
    Millis, MA 02054



MTC-00026256

From: RUTHANN SUDMAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:51pm
    Dear Renata B. Hesse
    I wish to file a complaint about the proposed Microsoft 
settlement as allowed by the Tunney Act. Although there are many 
points to argue in this settlement, I have selected Section III.A.2.
    I am concerned because the PFJ prohibits certain behaviors by 
Microsoft towards OEMs, however 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. I do 
not find this to be an acceptable solution. I am TIRED of purchasing 
computers and paying for an Operating System that I will NEVER use. 
In the past, Microsoft has made legal arrangements with most major 
OEMs that act to cause financial distress upon said OEMs if 
alternate Operating Systems are offered on their stock machines. As 
a result, in the current market the option to purchase a stock 
machine without the Microsoft Operating System has become 
nonexistant at

[[Page 27780]]

mainstream retailers such as Best Buy and Office Depot.
    I want it to be made very clear to Microsoft that OEM's may 
purchase copies of the Microsoft OS/licence at a volume discount 
even if they choose to offer more than one OS as the stock Operating 
System install. The volume discount pricing should be the same, 
whether or not the OEM chooses to offer more than one stock 
Operating System. An OEM should not be punished for offering their 
customers a choice.
    As an example: If Microsoft can force an OEM to offer ONLY the 
Microsoft operating system on its personal computers, will all 
pickup truck owners one day be forced to buy their trucks with 
snowplows automatically installed because a major snowplow 
manufacter makes financially advantageous deals with truck 
manufacturers? I am certain everyone who lives in a more temperate 
part of the country would be very pleased... just as pleased as I am 
when I purchase a work machine that has a buggy, security faulted, 
diseased Operating System installed that impairs my work?
    Thank you for your time,
    Sincerely,
    Ruthann Sudman
    2015 41st Street NW # F40
    Rochester, MN 55901
    (507) 358-7658
    [email protected]



MTC-00026257

From: golf4dude
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Dear Sir,
    I would like to comment on the lawsuits that Microsoft has been 
faced with. I feel that these suits are based on inaccurate charges. 
These suits have also reduced the nations'' wealth and effected 
personal IRA's far more than the Enron failure ever could. As a 
matter of fact, I feel that the start of the recent economic 
downturn can be directly related to the Clinton/Reno court actions 
against Microsoft I feel that the government is acting to protect 
companies such as Netscape from unfair practices that are non-
existent. Over the years I have purchased several computers, many 
had Netscape available and needed only to be activated for use. I 
have used Netscape but chose to use Internet Explorer because I like 
it. If Netscape develops a better product, I might use it, but 
that's my choice. I have used AOL, but now I have a local ISP. Is 
AOL going to bitch and file suit because I am not using their 
product? The ISP that I am with has 5000 customers and AOL has 9 
million, is this unfair practices? As I see it the government's job 
is to protect me from a monopolistic company not Netscape or AOL 
from having to compete. The government should focus on protecting 
the consumer and get out of the business of hampering competition 
and development.
    Ken Dell



MTC-00026258

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:50pm
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,
    Maureen Gilbert
    1810 Shardell Dr.
    St. Louis, MO 63138-1143



MTC-00026259

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having revieved the tentative Final Judgement of the Microsoft 
Antitrust case, I urge you to give final approval t the judgement as 
is stands. It appears that Microsoft has made concessions in good 
faith and I feel that further interference with Microsoft's ability 
to conduct business would adversely effect many aspects of the 
American economy.
    Very truly,
    Susan Roesler



MTC-00026260

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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. My background: I am a visual effects designer for film. I work 
at Industrial Light and Magic in San Rafael California using Silicon 
Graphics and Linux operating systems. Our company uses Windows and 
Macintosh operating systems as well. Each operating system used here 
has an important place in our production workflow. I'll try and keep 
this breif and to the point...
    Essentially, I'm totally against the weak settlement proposals 
and would like the Department of Justice to consider harsher 
punishment for Microsoft's crimes. I can't imagine that anybody 
believes the current ``toothless'' settlement proposals 
will have any effect on Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Even 
in light of the negative publicity from the trial, and the damning 
``findings of fact'', Microsoft boldly continues to take 
over everything that's up for grabs (and some things that aren't!). 
In the several years since the trial began, we've seen Microsoft 
branching out into new markets and unfairly using their monopoly 
position to promote Xboxes, the PocketPC, MSNBC, Hotmail, WindowsXP, 
Windows Media Player, their ``.net'' strategy... the list 
goes on and on. I read the news that the US Navy is switching 
everything over to Microsoft Windows--something I find quite 
frightening! I also read last week that they just bought all of 
Silicon Graphics patents in 3D technology--This concerns me 
immensely, because of the industry that I'm in. They could use these 
to leverage power unfairly to squash competition in the film and 
television industry as well as the huge games industry.
    It begs the question, why, when Microsoft is in the middle of an 
antitrust/monopoly trial, is Microsoft even allowed to buy up 
intellectual property and agressively expand into new markets? 
Please, reconsider the settlement proposal. They were found guilty 
of anticompetitve practices in 1995. They got a slap on the wrist 
and that didn't stop them continuing their illegal business 
practices that are the subject of the current trial. What makes you 
think that they'll pay the slightest bit of notice to the current 
proposals? What should be done? I think they should be hit up with 
an enormous fine that is in proportion to their huge market cap and 
value of assets. I think that this fine should not be trivial, it 
should hurt the company and make them afraid to transgress the law 
again. I also think that Microsoft should be split up. Clearly they 
have far too much influence and power for a company that has 
demonstrated again and again that they are unable to wield this 
power responsibly.
    Essentially, I ask the Department of Justice for Justice.
    Thank you,
    Joe Pavlo
    Joe Pavlo
    Industrial Light and Magic
    San Rafael, CA, 94901



MTC-00026262

From: William J Crowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement is tough on Microsoft but a 
fair compromise for all parties concerned. Do not allow this to drag 
on longer at the interest of some special groups. Yours Truly,



MTC-00026263

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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.

[[Page 27781]]

    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of 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 Eisenback
    3510 Indian Meadow Dr.
    Blacksburg, VA 24060



MTC-00026264

From: William R. Hahn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I, for one, I hope that ``reluctant parties'' allow 
the settlement to proceed without further complications.
    Microsoft can be ``accused'' of *Bringing the best 
software to market that money can buy *Providing excellent customer 
service and follow-up *Never abusing its extraordinary success by 
gouging consumers *Coming up from behind in a new field . and ending 
on top. (i.e. Internet Explorer).
    No wonder that AOL and others try to get relief in the courts, 
when they realize that they are losing in the marketplace!
    William R. Hahn
    Los Angeles, CA 90049



MTC-00026265

From: Richard Borczak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I understand that a settlement had been reached with Microsoft 
as a result of the long trail, but that competitors are still 
wanting to go further. I cannot see it. I switched recently from 
Netscape Navigator to Internet Explorer because I found that IE is 
BETTER.
    I received Netscape navigator years ago, FREE, to use. I see no 
difference for Microsoft to give IE free than Netscape giving it 
away.
    This foolishness has cost everybody a lot of money already. 
Don't prolong it.
    Richard L Borczak



MTC-00026266

From: John Davis
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Davis
29 Birch Ct.
Oakley, Ca 94561
January 26, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall 
Street. With the reins off the high-tech 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. Davis



MTC-00026267

From: Mark Spacher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:05pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This is to ask that you give your approval to the agreement 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. It is time to put 
this matter to rest. The two parties have worked for three years to 
settle it and we should abide by their efforts. Any further action 
will only be a waste of taxpayers'' money. The fact there was a 
lawsuit at all is annoying to me. Bill Gates worked long and hard to 
make his company successful. Now, he is being punished for it. This 
lawsuit was more a political ploy than any shady business dealings 
on the part of a company. Microsoft has also acceded to many of the 
requests of the Department of Justice. Microsoft will have an 
oversight committee to monitor future actions; Microsoft has agreed 
to help companies better achieve a degree of reliability with regard 
to their networking software. Microsoft will give computer makers 
broad new rights to configure Windows to promote non-Microsoft 
software programs. This is more than fair
    Give your approval to this agreement. It is time to go forward. 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Spacher
    40 North Avenue
    Rochester, NY 14626



MTC-00026268

From: jack engel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The settlement made between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice is more than just. I feel that this situation has dragged on 
for far too long. I would like to see it brought to a close as soon 
as possible. Microsoft has agreed to more than they should have, and 
asking them to do more is absurd.
    Microsoft is willing to license some of the internal codes of 
Windows so that its competitors will be able to develop software 
that is compatible with Windows. This will allow for more 
competition within the IT industry, which will in turn help the 
economy. Furthermore, once this issue is decided at the Federal 
level, it should be over. The states should not have the option of 
pursuing further litigation. Thank you for considering our views on 
this issue. I hope that this matter is soon brought to a close. Our 
courts should be pursuing more important matters.
    Sincerely,
    John & Susan Engel
    Jack Engel
    82 South Avenue
    New Canaan, CT 06840
    203 966-7576



MTC-00026269

From: M. Schultz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice
    Dear Folks:
    When pondering settlement penalties and costs as compensation 
for monopoly practices, it is appropriate to consider where the 
electronic industry would be today had Microsoft (MSFT) not been 
allowed to ride roughshod over the hardware and software industries 
over the last 9 years. Is it conjecture to work to try to determine 
where the industry would be or can one forecast with relative 
accuracy? Forecasting the future is highly problematic but we have 
many employed in that field, including within the government, so 
even forward looking is considered a legitimate exercise. This 
effort, however, is more akin to ``Monday morning 
quarterbacking,'' and I believe it can be done rather 
precisely. Determination of the paths available in retrospect can be 
made highly accurate. There are much better pundits and experts that 
I to accomplish this but I can tell you from my nearly 30 years of 
experience in the electronics industry that had MSFT been reigned in 
by Justice when they began this illegal and unethical activity, the 
face of the software and hardware world and the high technology 
industry would be very much different. Netscape might be the largest 
software company and we could all very well be using Apple 
computers. There would be much different corporate use globally, and 
the many flavors of Linux utilized by enterprise would not have 
appropriated the hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy 
that MSFT pulled. How many new firms would this money have spawned? 
How many jobs would it have created? What new technologies could 
have been driven that without the world of Windows to crush and 
destroy them, would now be thriving enterprises?
    The reason that the high tech industry is in such a shambles and 
depression right now

[[Page 27782]]

is as a direct result of one player dominating the market and the 
industry for far too long. Nine years without much innovation on the 
desktop and the resulting spawn of computer viruses are one the best 
testimonies on the one player who controls everything.
    I believe the huge tech industry in the United States would be 
MORE THAN DOUBLE it's current size today, employing hundreds of 
thousands of additional workers, had Justice not been asleep at the 
wheel and MSFT not been allowed to dominate and obliterate virtually 
everyone in their path.
    To make things right, I believe MSFT must be forced to 
contribute $100 billion dollars to an electronics industry 
investment fund, so that enterprising companies and individuals can 
receive funding to bring their ideas and products to market. MSFT 
must also open all closed standards on their browser and their 
operating system; their applications, such as Office, etc., should 
remain their sole IP. This penalty should be paid over 5 years, to 
give the economy a boost.
    This penalty will return some of the money MSFT appropriated 
from the electronics industry, and although we can never get these 
nine years back to re-live, at least we can re-establish a level 
playing field and an atmosphere of innovation once again. This money 
will create jobs, and these jobs will create a greater tax base. 
Hopefully, we can re-capture some of the jobs MSFT eliminated from 
the economy.
    Additionally, an oversight committee must be established to make 
certain MSFT is properly regulated and does not commit further 
damage to the American economy. Because of MSFT's power and wealth, 
the individuals on the committee should be rotated every six months.
    Again, I firmly believe the computer and electronics industry 
would be more than double it's current size if one company had not 
sucked so much capital and resources out of the economy. Imaging 
spreading all of that capital around hundreds of companies over the 
last nine years, and I think you would be able to envision where the 
US electronics industry would be right now. Good luck, keep up the 
good work and thank you very much for not allowing MSFT to escape 
and profit from the earlier absurd settlement. Push this win to 
conclusion.
    Best,
    Matt Schultz
    7985 S. Bemis Street
    Littleton CO 80120
    CC:Tam Ormiston



MTC-00026271

From: Matt Matthews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to you as a concerned United States citizen to 
express my opposition to the Proposed Final Judgment put forth by 
the Department of Justice to settle the current antitrust case 
against Microsoft. This PFJ does not address adequately the issues 
raised during that case, especially considering that Microsoft was 
found guilty of monopoly maintenance. As a user of an alternative, 
non-Microsoft operating system, I am constantly aware of the 
difficulties that the Microsoft monopoly imposes on the computing 
world. I work as a mathematician in the Duke University Mathematics 
Department, and I routinely run into problems associated with 
proprietary Microsoft document formats and other proprietary 
Microsoft technologies. Since much our department relies on non-
Microsoft operating systems on faculty desktops, communication with 
my colleagues or department staff is hindered each time someone with 
Microsoft Word sends a document by email. Furthermore, my research 
often requires me to find documents on the web, and occasionally web 
sites that have information I need use Microsoft technologies that 
restrict or completely block my access to that information. These 
technologies are kept secret by Microsoft as part of their monopoly 
maintenance; the formats change often and are not officially 
documented, making the creation of interoperable or competing 
products needlessly difficult. Any proposed final judgment should 
address this artificial barrier to communication and 
interoperability that Microsoft has used, and continues to use, to 
maintain their positions in various markets. Furthermore, any 
interoperability information should not be restricted to creating 
products that run on Microsoft operating systems, as the current PFJ 
does not encourage this cooperation.
    Furthermore, Microsoft has a history of intentionally 
introducing incompatibilities to discourage the use of non-Microsoft 
operating systems. See the following link for more information: 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#caldera Any acceptable 
remedy should prevent Microsoft from creating such artificial 
incompatibilities with future products. The current PFJ does not do 
this, and for that reason it is unacceptable.
    While the current PFJ does create an oversight committee with 
the technical background to judge Microsoft's conduct, it does not 
spell out effective methods of enforcement when Microsoft breaks the 
terms of the settlement, and the prevailing opinion is that the 
legal system would be the only recourse for dealing with violations. 
However, in a market as fluid and swift as that of computers and 
software, any acceptable remedy should include a streamlined 
procedure for judging alleged violations and imposing penalties. 
While these are not the only weaknesses of the current PFJ, they are 
some of the most important. I am hopeful that the Department of 
Justice will work to formulate a new settlement that has stronger 
penalties for the actions for which Microsoft has already been found 
guilty as well as stronger measures to prevent Microsoft from taking 
future anticompetitive actions. If you have questions or require 
clarification of any statements I've made in this letter, please 
contact me via phone or email. My contact information can be found 
at the bottom of this letter.
    Regards,
    John V. Matthews, III
    Matt Matthews -bs ph: 919.660.2811 
-bs Use GNU/Linux --o) w00t
    Duke Univ., Postdoc-bs 
[email protected] 
-bs----------------------------- /
-bs-bs
    Dept. of Mathematics-bs http://
www.math.duke.edu/jvmatthe/ -bs 
---bs--V



MTC-00026272

From:
To:
Date:
Subject: 
Brad Borland
Microsoft ATR
1/26/02 5:09pm
Microsoft Settlement
Please see attachment
10831 Valmay Avenue NW
Seattle, WA 98177-5336
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I am writing today to encourage the 
Department of Justice to accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. 
It disappoints me that the government has in the past chosen to 
harass a company like Microsoft. Microsoft has added such a great 
economic contribution to this country. The contribution extends from 
Washington State all the way to Washington, DC Microsoft is a core 
holding of most company retirement plans, 401Ks, IRAs and mutual 
funds throughout America. Therefore it is in the best interests of 
almost every American to get this case settled. In order to settle 
this issue Microsoft has agreed to many terms. It has agreed to 
design future versions of Windows to be more compatible with non-
Microsoft software. It has also agreed to change several aspects of 
the way it does business with computer makers. Microsoft did not get 
off easy, there are pages of terms agreed to in addition to these 
two. Microsoft needs to be able to get back to business. This suit 
has bogged down the company for over three years now. For the good 
of American's everywhere I urge you to accept the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement.
Respectfully
    J.Bradford Borland



MTC-00026272--0002



MTC-00026273

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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

[[Page 27783]]

future, not only in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of 
innovations in the most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    RYAN VANDERHEIDE
    3369 DANIEL ST
    NEWBURY PARK, CA 91320-5015



MTC-00026274

From: Liza Gabriel Ravenheart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms Hesse;
    This settlement is not in the best interests of consumers here 
in the US or anywhere. It is not in the interest of our personal 
autonomies and freedoms. Microsoft must have platforms that are 
compatible with unix and others that may develop. Diversity and 
democracy are inseparable. If Microsoft Corporation cannot cooperate 
with its competitors, then it is not a good corporate citizen of the 
United States or of the Global community.
    Please reconsider this settlement which I feel will 
substantially destroy the autonomy of people world wide.
    Sincerely,
    Elizabeth Braude
    10266 Old Redwood Hwy
    Penngrove, CA 94951



MTC-00026275

From: Jeanne C Delaney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's get this Microsoft ordeal over with as soon as possible. 
It is to blame for much of the economic distress in the USA. The 
only ones profiting from it are the lawyers. Let's get the USA back 
to business now!
    J. C. Delaney



MTC-00026276

From: Benjamin Grossmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to take this opportunity to state that I feel 
Microsoft should NOT be let off lightly in this antitrust case. They 
have demonstrated repeatedly that they are capable of abusing their 
power as a monopoly by stifling competition and crushing the very 
innovation that created this entire technology revolution.
    Thank you.
    Ben Grossmann



MTC-00026277

From: Denniston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Susan Denniston
4731 117th Place NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It greatly disturbs me that Microsoft's opponents are currently 
seeking to overturn the settlement that has been proposed and bring 
further litigation against Microsoft. I do not believe that this is 
either necessary or wise. Not only would additional federal action 
be painfully redundant, it would also negatively impact the economy, 
the computer industry, and ultimately the consumer.
    The settlement seems fair enough to both Microsoft and its 
competitors. For one thing, Microsoft is allowed to remain intact, 
but its competitors have had the playing field leveled for them. So 
operations at Microsoft will continue with several restrictions and 
changes, but the normalcy that will remain in Microsoft's operations 
will not hinder or harm the progress of competitors. For example, 
Microsoft will refrain from entering into any contract that would 
require a third party to distribute Microsoft products either 
exclusively or at a fixed percentage. Microsoft has also agreed to 
document and disclose source code from its Windows operating system 
for use by its competitors and to facilitate their ability to 
operate within the Microsoft framework. I believe this part of the 
agreement is extremely generous on Microsoft's part!
    It is in everyone's best interest to drop the idea of continued 
litigation--especially in light of the ridiculous new lawsuit 
announced by AOL this week against Microsoft. No one will benefit in 
the long run from an extended suit. I urge you and your office to 
support the finalization of the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Susan Denniston
    [email protected]



MTC-00026278

From: robin mccoy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, i wish to comment on the recent proposed 
remedy for the anti-trust case against Microsoft as found here: 
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm I feel that this 
proposed judgment fails to fully address the issues disclosed in the 
DOJ's finding of fact: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/
msjudgex.htm
    This judgment will not impede Microsoft from leveraging it's 
established monopoly in the operating system marketplace against 
it's competitors, and I wish to voice my dissatisfaction with this 
proposed settlement.
    Thank You,
    Michael R. McCoy



MTC-00026279

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:25pm
Subject: microsoft case
    it is time to end that waste of time. the industry needs to get 
out of the courts, and do software. there should be no support for 
those who cannot settle.



MTC-00026280

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. Stop harassing Microsoft.



MTC-00026281

From: Linas Muliolis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:26pm
Subject: The Proposed Final Judgement
    Your Honor,
    Please review your final judgement for Microsoft with the 
results being fair business practices, ethical competition, consumer 
choice being proctected and Microsoft ceasing monopolistic 
practices. I do not believe Microsoft is being fair and honest.
    Linas Muliolis
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026282

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:27pm
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,
    LaDonna McCant-Dickey
    4539 Derrick Drive
    San Diego, CA 92117



MTC-00026283

From: John Hyland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's absurd narrow interpretation of the Tunney Act 
should be reason enough for punishment, but it is just another 
display of the arrogance with which they treat the law of this 
country. Make them pay mightily from their illegal profits and treat 
them as other monopolies have been, break them up.
    We need some real competition so that consumers can have some 
choices.
    Thank you,
    John J. Hyland
    Gilroy, CA

[[Page 27784]]



MTC-00026285

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
From: Tedd Koren,DC
PO Box 665
Gwynedd Valley, PA 19437-0665
215-699-7906
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I would like to see true justice served in the Microsoft case 
that is a win-win for everyone. Too often a solution can make 
matters worse. I feel the following should be considered:
    1. The proposed settlement is not in the public interest. The 
settlement leaves the Microsoft monopoly intact. It is vague and 
unenforceable. It leaves Microsoft with numerous opportunities to 
exempt itself from crucial provisions.
    2. The proposed settlement ignores the all-important 
applications barrier to entry which must be reduced or eliminated. 
Any settlement or order needs to provide ways for consumers to run 
any of the 70,000 existing Windows applications on any other 
operating system.
    3. Consumers need a la carte competition and choice so they, not 
Microsoft, decide what products are on their computers. The 
settlement must provide ways for any combination of non-Microsoft 
operating systems, applications, and software components to run 
properly with Microsoft products.
    4. The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States are 
in the public interest and absolutely necessary, but they are not 
sufficient without the remedies mentioned above.
    5. The court must hold public proceedings under the Tunney Act, 
and these proceedings must give citizens and consumer groups an 
equal opportunity to participate, along with Microsoft's competitors 
and customers.
    Sincerely,
    Tedd Koren, DC



MTC-00026286

From: Sean Turner
To: Microsoft ATR,billg@microsoft. 
com@inetgw,cyrusm@ha...
Date: 1/26/02 5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While Microsoft can be considered a monopoly, should they be 
punished for this? I used to be a Netscape User; then, when Internet 
Explorer 3 was released, I tried using it and found it to be 
substandard and buggy. As a result, I continued to use Netscape. 
Then, with Microsoft's release of IE 4, I found it to be much 
faster, more stable, and more feature complete then Netscape, and 
decided to switch browsers, not because it came bundled with my 
operating system, but because it was a superior program Microsoft 
ultimately developed a technologically superior product, is it not 
logical that people would then use it instead of Netscape? Should 
they be punished for this? Can you legally punish a company because 
they are successful? Microsoft integrated its browser to provide a 
better product for the consumer. They are in no way inhibiting 
Netscape's ability to accept. They in no way impede a user's ability 
to download Netscape and use it. Even AOL Time Warner believes IE is 
a superior browser. In their own AOL browser, they use the IE 
browser instead of Netscape. Success is not a crime.
    Should they be punished for bundling their browser with Windows? 
Now, the browser is tightly integrated with almost all features of 
Windows. It is virtually impossible to separate the two. Every time 
you open ``My Computer,'' view a help file, open Word, 
boot, or even view your desktop, you are using Internet Explorer. 
Back when Windows 3.1 was popular, IE didn't exist, and, users used 
a much more cumbersome and buggy interface to navigate files. Now, 
instead of using 2 different applications for folder browsing and 
web viewing, Microsoft integrated the two programs, in effect 
speeding up overall system performance and reliability. Furthermore, 
it also helps new computer users to ``get online'' without 
having to go through complex processes to install a browser. Now, 
all someone has to do is boot their computer, and they have all the 
software they need to connect to the internet. Should Microsoft be 
punished for enabling people such as my mother to effectively use a 
computer? If yes, then why not punish Apple? They have much the same 
approach. Apple controls the all the hardware used on their 
computers, and install Apple's own programs by default in an attempt 
to simplify setup for users, thus allowing the computer illiterate 
to use a computer without having to have a tech-savvy friend set it 
up for them. This strategy of simplification is used throughout the 
industry, why should only Microsoft be punished for it? You cannot 
separate Microsoft because everything is so tightly integrated, 
Microsoft is nothing without this integration, much like Apple is 
nothing without their tight integration of software and hardware. 
This is the direction the entire industry has taken, should we thus 
turn the clock back on the computer industry?
    It is not the government's job to police the computer industry. 
Before the government tries to break up private monopolies, they 
should abolish their own. For example the US Postal Service was, for 
a long time, the only way to send mail, and thus, it had to reason 
to improve its services and was notoriously slow. With the advent of 
FedEx and UPS, the postal service has improved its service, but 
still is loosing market share because other carriers offer a better 
product. And now the government is trying to make taxpayers pay for 
its failure by trying to tax email. It is not the government's job 
to police private industry and punish companies for their success. I 
ask that the federal government and states drop all charges against 
Microsoft.
    Sean Turner
    Sales Representative
    Rowena's Designs
    15232 Stratford Court
    Monte Sereno, CA 95030
    Phone: (408) 395-7907
    Fax: (408) 395-6923
    Email:  
[email protected]
    Web:  
www.sensability.inc.new.net



MTC-00026287

From: roelof ``t Hooft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Regarding the DOJ against Microsoft case I would like to ask you 
: What is going on with the settlement ? As I understand the 
settlement will give Microsoft more power and ways to do everything 
that this case was suppose to stop them from doing. Microsoft is too 
large and powerfull and does and still will harm the customer (in 
the long run) with their monopolistic practises. Stop Microsoft 
instead of giving them more power !!



MTC-00026288

From: Marjorie and Victor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:37pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    We are very much in favor of the microsoft settlement and think 
it will be a significant boost to the economy.
    Sincerely,
    Victor and Marjorie Carmody



MTC-00026290

From: Robert D. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:38pm
Subject:  Microsoft Settlement
    [email protected]@inetgw
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,  
Hello, my name is Robert D. Smith and I am a student at Boston 
University. I am very much emotionally shaken by the recent 
settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft (PFJ). I'd 
like to present my first argument. The PFJ does nothing to inhibit 
the activities of Microsoft as a working, fully functional monopoly 
through the use of its operating system (OS). My second argument is 
that the settlement is too ambiguous. It does not clearly and 
directly reprimand Microsoft for the violation of clearly defined 
anti-trust laws (present and past). It would be a horrid, useless 
example to set by allowing MS to get away with such an atrocity. 
Microsoft has many tactics, which are just so very sinister. The 
corporation is continually escaping proper justice its retaliation 
schemes, conniving tactics, bolting- domineering schemes, and 
attacks on Java. All these actions result in a lower ability of 
competition to reach the same marketing and commercial status as MS. 
This market is supposedly a ``free'' market but software 
standards are being monopolized even as this email is being sent. 
And to conclude, the PFJ provides an ineffective enforcement 
mechanism (balance and check) for the weak restrictions implemented 
on its bodies of influence.
    Simply in short, I am deeply perturbed over the recent 
settlement. This settlement does not regulate Microsoft enough. In 
this

[[Page 27785]]

very fashion of advancement, Microsoft will simply continue its 
monopolistic ways of commerce. And to further clarify my argument, 
Microsoft is not even being reprimanded for past aggressions, which 
are clearly evident. The present situation is that an unfeasibly 
weak standard is in place. I know this simply my opinion, but I 
would sincerely request that you would do whatever might be suitable 
to overturn the settlement in review.
    Sincerely,
    Robert D. Smith
    My Address is:
    Robert D. Smith
    Box 1775, 277 Babcock Street
    Boston, Massachusetts 02215
    Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here
    01/29/2002 1:20 [



MTC-00026291

From: Clay Haapala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to state my opinions as being against the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    The settlement does little to punish Microsoft for its actions. 
Worse, it does nothing to provide remedy, or to ``undo'' 
the results of those monopolistic actions.
    My career has been affected negatively by these actions, 
primarily by the way that Microsoft's product positions have 
affected the plans of the companies that have employed me. While it 
is always the case that the actions of a dominant market player will 
affect all others in that market space, it has now been established 
that Microsoft has partially obtained that position through illegal 
practices.
    Since many of these practices involved illegal influences on 
Microsoft's part to prevent competition to its proprietary products, 
protocols, and interfaces, appropriate remedies would be a mandatory 
publishing of these protocols and interfaces.
    Jackson's ``split the company'' remedy would have 
accomplished this by forcing the separated parts of the company to 
formally communicate with each other in public ways. Yes, 
competitors would certainly also be part of those communications, 
but then, the market winner becomes the one with the best product, 
sales, and service.
    Such publication would also be a great step forward in security. 
Please see Bruce Schneier's and Adam Shostack's recent article at 
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/315.
    I'm not demanding that Microsoft be broken up, but a publication 
remedy is appropriate.
    Thank you.
    Clay Haapala  ``A 
generation of CS and Quake Players
    GPG key 8DB9110D being drafted is a scary thought.''
    2309 Archers Lane--comment seen on
    Minnetonka MN 55305 Drippy's 2-Fort TFC server
    952-542-9873



MTC-00026292

From: Peter Nicklin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:40pm
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, The Proposed Final Judgment in the case of United 
States vs. Microsoft does NOT remedy Microsoft's monopolistic 
behavior. The settlement still allows Microsoft to continue its 
monopoly, destroying competing products by selling equivalent 
Microsoft products below cost, i.e. by bundling them in the Windows 
Operating System at no extra charge. For example, Microsoft now 
distributes Windows Media Player in Windows XP for free, thus 
stealing market from RealNetworks'' Real Player and Apple 
Computer's QuickTime by using its exclusive Windows Operating System 
distribution channel.
    The only cure for this behavior is to prevent Microsoft from:
    a) Selling products below cost.
    b) Using the Windows Operating System to distribute new products 
that compete with non-Microsoft products already established in the 
marketplace.
    I recommend that if a non-Microsoft product has more than 20% 
market share, then it should be considered an ``established 
product'' in the marketplace, and Microsoft should not be 
allowed to bundle a competing product with the Windows Operating 
System. I also recommend that new Microsoft products that compete 
with established non-Microsoft products should be developed and sold 
by a completely independent wholly-owned Microsoft subsidiary. The 
subsidiary would have no more access to Microsoft APIs and other 
proprietary information than other companies. Further, the 
subsidiary would not be allowed to enter into exclusive deals with 
Microsoft. My recommendation for new products to be developed by a 
Microsoft subsidiary is a structural remedy but is much easier to 
implement than breaking the company up.
    It would be easier to discover collusion between Microsoft and a 
subsidiary than by asking a 3-person technical committee to try and 
baby-sit Microsoft by monitoring compliance with the proposed final 
judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Nicklin
    SoftFrame, Inc.
    P.O. Box 10067,
    San Jose, CA 95157-0067.
    Ph: (408)379-0171



MTC-00026294

From: Joseph D Krug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I would like to see the Microsoft case settled. I believe the 
government was dead wrong to sue Microsoft.
    The company is not a monoply and never was. The government has 
wasted time and the taxpayers money on this case. It is now time for 
your office to correct the stupidity of the past Justice Dept. which 
started this case. I due believe since 9-11-01 the 
entire federal government has more important issuses to deal with. I 
have complete confidence your office will resolve this case quickly.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph D Krug



MTC-00026295

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Thomas Vreeland
    126 Calumet Ct
    Crestview Hills, KY 41017



MTC-00026296

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:45pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Sir:
    I keep reading about all these lawsuits against Microsoft. It 
appears to me that we have reached the stage in this country that we 
punish success. We seem to be doing all in our power to promote 
mediocrity. If AOL or anyone else has a problem with the way 
Microsoft operates, let them develop a better system. Thus the 
market place will automatically trend to the better system. This is 
what has happened with Microsoft. They have single handily opened up 
the world of computers to the lay person (and there are so many of 
us).
    With all the mergers that the government has allowed, it appears 
almost on the trend of hypocrisy to keep attacking Microsoft. What 
other companies'' R& Ds could not accomplish, they are 
requesting the courts to do for them. We are a capitalistic country 
and thus the most wealthy country in the world. Let us not squash 
our aggressiveness and the desire to excel and succeed, which is 
what has made us great! With all these lawsuits, Microsoft has had 
to spend millions of dollars defending itself rather than spending 
these millions on furthering their R&D.
    What may we all have lost?

[[Page 27786]]

    In addition, how many millions has the government spent to 
prosecute Microsoft. These monies would have been better spent 
fighting drug trafficking, etc.
    Don't we have anything better to do than to attack one of this 
world's most creative company?
    I humbly submit the above for your consideration.
    Sherman A. Rothberg
    Bellmore, NY
    CC:msfin@microsoft. com@inetgw,Meus1@ 
aol.com@inetgw



MTC-00026297

From: Don Kitchen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern
    I am a senior systems engineer with a Fortune 500 consulting 
firm. I have a bachelors degree in computer science and am nearing 
completion in a master's degree in CS with an emphasis on operating 
systems. I am writing to voice my opinion on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement.
    I am appalled at the degree to which the Justice department is 
neglecting the interests of consumers. Microsoft is a powerful 
company that has been found guilty of illegally extending and 
maintaining monopoly power. But proposed is basically no penalty to 
punish for ill-gotten gains. Does no one remember this is the second 
time around, and that Microsoft previously obtained a consent 
decree? It was so generous that Microsoft's stock immediately rose. 
In fact, I would say that the only reason that the case this time 
around awkwardly centered on browsers is that in the previous 
agreement, nobody thought to grant Microsoft a loophole to stifle 
competition in that area.
    Those who suppose there has been little harm to the consumer 
ignore the realities of the computer industry. While costs in every 
other area go down, the software costs rise, especially when taken 
as a percentage of the whole system. Also, harm occurs in other 
ways; witness the recent Microsoft scheme to punish those who do not 
upgrade immediately to each new product, by eliminating 
``discounts''. Microsoft's very profitability is evidence 
of their monopoly power. One might say that their investments and 
spare cash provide a good measure of how large to make the penalty. 
Microsoft attributes their success to innovation. However, this 
neglects that the innovators were all with companies taken over by 
Microsoft's might. This also neglects the innovators stifled by 
Microsoft, whose monopoly position allows them great leverage 
against any competing technology. The way they have bundled the 
browser is just an obvious occurrence of standard practice. There is 
a joke that if someone made a new chair, Microsoft would innovate 
Microsoft Chair, and out of desire to provide their customers with 
everything they need, ship it with their operating system, with 
mysterious incompatibilities if anyone tried to sit in another brand 
chair while at their computer.
    If allowed to continue leveraging one product to solidify the 
position of the next, the future of competition looks bleak. 
Microsoft has promoted its Office suite, web browser, and web server 
products to prominence based on the strength of its operating 
system. Since these products are available only for Microsoft's 
operating system, they in turn reinforce the original monopoly. In 
the office suite area, it's difficult for competitors to be fully 
compatible because of changes in the file formats. As a part of the 
penalties against Microsoft, it should be mandated that all file 
formats and API's used be fully documented publicly. And unlike the 
errors in Section III(J)(2) there should be no loopholes to prevent 
disclosure to not-for-profit groups. Microsoft has abused its own 
discretion too many times to suppose they will not do it again.
    Additionally, in recent years Microsoft has formulated its 
strategy for internet monopolies beyond the browser, which they will 
fortify with their existing monopolies. Chief among them are the 
Windows Media player and .NET. These should be addressed in the 
settlement, preferably by splitting them to individual companies 
forbidden to sign exclusive contracts, or Microsoft should be 
mandated to maintain full functionality on their top two competing 
operating systems (namely MacOS and Linux). In the area of streaming 
media, already Microsoft is pushing the innovators out of the field 
in favor of their own Windows Media player, which limits consumer 
choice because of course it is available only for Microsoft 
platforms. The .NET scheme is especially designed to place a single 
entity as an essential element of any transaction that occurs. This 
transition is not one that occurs as a result of natural market 
forces, but rather one that can only be leveraged in by an existing 
monopoly, for the sole purpose of extending the monopoly. Yet the 
Department of Justice appears more interested in retreating with 
honor at the expense of consumer choice. Another ignored consumer 
harm that has occurred is that Microsoft's products have gaping 
security holes. Yet they appear to be immune from product liability 
concerns. In fact, previous shortcomings only serve as inducement 
for consumers to purchase the next ``new and improved'' 
product. In other markets, product liability enforcement would force 
the vendor to reimburse consumers. Not so in this market. Recall the 
billions of dollars lost in such occurrences as ``I love 
you'', ``code red'', ``nimda'', and other 
embarrassments. Instead, consumers bear the cost. No doubt consumers 
will continue to bear the cost in the newest product cycle, with 
``Universal Plug & Play'' starting off the new list of 
security problems; even the ``solution'' of continual 
updating only serves to bind consumers more tightly to the monopoly 
provider.
    There are some who say that Microsoft should be rewarded because 
as a highly successful company they do much good for the economy. 
While it is true that as a monopoly they have been very successful 
at maintaining their monopoly, this theory ignores the fact that 
their income is someone else's expenses. By the same standards, we 
might laud Ponzi and Enron for the success of their efforts to 
extract monies from others, if large incomes are so good for a 
strong economy.
    I plead for the current ``surrender to Microsoft'' to 
be rejected.
    Thank you
    Don Kitchen



MTC-00026298

From: virtual
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against allowing Microsoft to continue to wield it's 
virtual monopoly to stifle competing software innovation. The DOJ/
Microsoft settlement is, in my opinion, an insufficient remedy.
    Sincerely,
    Al Dorsa
    Box 223761
    Christiansted, VI 00822



MTC-00026299

From: billmueller@pobox. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam/Sir,
    While I do believe that Microsoft often abuses it's position as 
industry leader in software operating systems to reduce competition, 
I am not convinced that a harsh penalty is in the best interest of 
justice or the software industry. Certainly, all of the companies 
that are urging harsh penalties are or have been, to some extent, 
guilty of similar practices. Remember that this ruling will set an 
important precedent which will shape the future of the software 
industry.
    I ask only that you deliver a judgement that causes Microsft 
some financial pain while at the same time clearly putting this 
whole thing behind us so that the software industry and the economy 
can recover.
    Regards,
    Bill Mueller
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026300

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I would like to state that it is my belief that the proposed 
settlement will not achieve its objective of restoring competition 
back into the software market, nor I fear will it stem the illegal 
practices of Microsoft.
    Although I have many concerns about the proposed settlement, it 
is sections III.D, III.J.1,2 that concern me the most. Microsoft has 
publicly stated that their strongest competition is from the Linux 
operating system, yet these sections would actually protect 
Microsoft from competition from such non-profit, volunteer 
organizations. It is my belief at this point that the only hope of 
real competition will be from these groups. For a settlement to be 
acceptable, Microsoft cannot be allowed to discriminate against such 
groups by not disclosing its APIs to them. I therefore kindly ask 
you to reject this proposal.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Blake

[[Page 27787]]

    Sunnyvale, CA
    My background: Software developer working since receiving M.S. 
in 1982.
    Currently employed at PTC, one of the larger software companies, 
which sells its products on both unix and Windows platforms.



MTC-00026301

From: Dave Quick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The terms of the settlement are tough, and I believe they are 
reasonable and fair to all parties, and meet-- or go 
beyond--the ruling by the Court of Appeals, and represent the 
best opportunity for Microsoft and the industry to move forward.
    Dave Quick
    New Albany, OH



MTC-00026302

From: Phillip Bivens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please reconsider the current settlement as defined between 
Microsoft and the U.S. DOJ. The DOJ gave up way to much to Microsoft 
in an effort to spur the economy. The current settlement gives 
Microsoft complete control of the PC industry and now makes it legal 
for them to squash the competition. This makes no sense to me as a 
consumer! If this settlement is approved as stated, what will stop 
GM or Ford from trying to do the same thing as Microsoft? What will 
stop General Electric from extending its domain? The government of 
the U.S.A. is supposed to be for the people and by the people as 
defined in the Preamble of the Constitution. When did this change to 
for the ``corporations'' and by the 
``corporations''? As defined the settlement is a disgrace 
on the judicial system.
    Regards,
    Phillip Bivens
    Naperville, IL USA



MTC-00026303

From: Steven Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:52pm
Subject: Opinion on Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Why did you give up on this case? The ``settlement'' 
is more like a surrender. With all due respect, one is forced to ask 
whether someone in Washington is afraid, or was bought off, or 
simply became conviced of the futility of fighting these people's 
criminally amassed wealth. We'll all suffer for it.
    Why am I bothering to write?
    Steven G. Young
    Menlo Park, CA



MTC-00026304

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:50pm
Subject: I support any action possible against Microsoft. My first 
computer was an Imac and I wanted to use N
    I support any action possible against Microsoft. My first 
computer was an Imac and I wanted to use Netscape as my browser, but 
the computer was set up for Explorer. It took hours of work to get 
things set up for Netscape. A less tenacious person would have given 
up and settled for Explorer. Microsoft had an unfair advantage in my 
opinion. Thank you for your efforts.
    Sincerely,
    Marilyn Wolf



MTC-00026305

From: Ed Detmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am a long term personal user of Microsoft products, as well as 
the decision maker for a $200,000,000 dollar business concerning 
software and operating systems. After exhaustive totally unbiased 
research we have chosen Microsoft over other companies for our 
business needs and of our own free will. We do not need or want the 
federal or state governments playing any role, which would interfere 
with the free market and our free choice. Take the settlement as 
proposed and agreed by the US Dept of Justice and the 9 states. 
Government meddling in free enterprise is very seldom beneficial to 
the consumer or to the economy. Get the federal and state 
governments out of this litigation as quickly as possible.
    Thank you for taking the time to consider the opinion of a non-
government person, with absolutely no bias due to political 
contributions.
    Ed Detmer
    V P Corporate Dev
    Reeb Millwork Corporation



MTC-00026306

From: Paul Caprioli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the judge to reject the Microsoft settlement. Real, 
substantial, enforceable penalties are needed to curb the Microsoft 
monopoly's unethical and anticompetitive business practices. As a 
consumer, the lack of acceptable alternatives to Microsoft's shoddy 
software is causing me significant trouble and inconvenience.
    Regards,
    Paul Caprioli
    Mountain View, CA



MTC-00026307

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    john ohare
    64 second st
    waterford, NY 12188-2419



MTC-00026308

From: Andrew S. Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern, Pursuant to the Tunney Act I am writing 
you to comment on the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-
trust litigation. The proposed settlement is inadequate. The 
settlement creates the appearance of regulatory action to curtail 
Microsoft's behavior, but it is only the appearance.
    Consider the example of AT&T. At the time that AT&T was 
first laying the copper cable to permit long distance phone service 
in the US, the cost of doing so was extraordinary. If AT&T had 
been forced to split the then small market for interstate and 
intrastate long distance, the cost of providing the service would 
have been far greater than any potential revenue. Seeking to first 
serve the interests of American citizens, government on all levels 
sanctioned AT&T's monopolistic position in the market, and 
permitted AT&T to use its monopoly position to maintain market 
stability.
    At the time the AT&T anti-trust action began, the market 
conditions that necesitated permitting monopolistic behavior and its 
mandatory side effects had disappeared. Seeking again to protect the 
interests of American citizens, the federal government began the 
process of permitting competition in the local, interlata, and 
interstate call markets. The fruits of that action, while certainly 
detrimental to AT&T at the time, can be seen in the plethora of 
long distance service providers and the dramatic reduction in the 
prices of those services.
    It could be argued that at the time of the birth of the computer 
industry that it was in the best interests of the industry for its 
resources to be concentrated. Without regulation or other federal 
action, Microsoft concentrated and then abused its power, which is, 
of course, a question of law answered in this case's judgment.
    I believe that the current settlement demonstrates the belief 
that Microsoft's case is fundamentally different from the case of 
AT&T. I would argue that they are identical. AT&T provided a 
service that most Americans consider nearly fundamental. The case 
against AT&T demonstrated that as much as we might admire or 
appreciate the products or people of a particular company, the 
remedies we seek in anti-trust actions must actually remedy the 
situation. First, the proposed remedy sets a dangerous precedent 
about the regulation of the software industry.
    Because no case exists in a vacuum, we must consider the fact 
that the

[[Page 27788]]

implementation of behavioral remedies on Microsoft necessitates the 
construction of governmental oversight of the software industry as a 
whole, which has grown incredibly without government interference. 
We must also consider the precedent we set in beginning the 
regulation of the software industry. Second, the proposed remedy 
does not actually remedy the situation. At its most fundamental 
level, the case against Microsoft as brought by the Justice 
Department alleged that Microsoft leveraged its position in adjacent 
but not coincident fields of computing to systematically destroy its 
competition. Behavioral requirements on Microsoft do no remedy 
Microsoft's ability to control the industry. Consider the 
``behavior modification'' approach in the AT&T case. 
Had AT&T not be forced to divest itself of its local carriers 
and been forced to permit competition in long distance, we would not 
have competitive local or long distance service. While AT&T 
might have been a cuddly 800 pound gorilla, it still would be an 800 
pound gorilla. To assume that any remedy that does not seperate 
distinct business units within Microsoft into seperate corporate 
entities with requirments about lowering the barriers to entry of 
competitors is foolish.
    Thank you for your time,
    Andrew Gardner
    Andrew S. Gardner
    [email protected]
    520-990-5953--Tucson, AZ



MTC-00026309

From: list(u)7531 at Hotmail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    Microsoft Media Player--
    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/download/
default.asp This product is a clear example of Microsoft abusing its 
monopoly in the software market. In order to access the ``MSN 
Music Radio player'' on http://music.msn.com, you need to have 
version 7 of the Media Player program. However, as you can see from 
the web page above, they offer the following:
    version 6.4 for Windows 95 and NT4
    version 6.3 for Solaris nothing for Linux
    Considering that Microsoft are expanding into the on-line media 
business, they clearly abuse their monopoly of Windows OS's against 
vendors of other Operating System software, and users of older 
Microsoft products. In order to resolve this, please try to ensure 
that Microsoft are required to provide identical versions of their 
software for other systems. On a similar basis, should Microsoft be 
required to ``port'' their various programs such as SQL 
server and the ``.NET'' server software to other platforms 
to allow fair competition?
    I hope you are able to ensure that these issues are covered by 
the
    Anti-trust settlement.
    Thanks,
    Adrian



MTC-00026310

From: Mark Beumeler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs
    The proposed settlement is bad idea.
    It does not address the findings of fact. Microsoft is a 
criminal monopolist. Please consider that the innovation that has 
been inhibited by Microsoft dwarfs by several thousand fold the puny 
cost of punishing and restricting Microsoft from all their predatory 
practices. Your job is to definitively restrict Microsoft from the 
possibility of monopolistic practices, and punish them in excess of 
their rewards.
    Regards,
    Wayne Beumeler



MTC-00026311

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:58pm
Subject: (no subject)
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to see the settlement reached between your office 
and Microsoft in their lengthy antitrust case approved as quickly as 
possible. To me, the suit is a case of sour grapes, propelled by 
competitors envious of Microsoft's ability to produce and sell 
``better mousetraps''.
    The terms of the settlement will allow the case to end on 
amicable terms. Microsoft is making significant concessions in the 
way it distributes its products to manufacturers and the public, and 
it is taking unprecedented steps in allowing rival companies to 
learn internal Windows program codes. Microsoft is being more than 
generous in its efforts to resolve the case. Right now, the Justice 
Department has more important things to tackle. To free your 
office's resources to properly prosecute Johnny ben Walker and 
investigate the Enron fiasco, I urge you to settle the antitrust 
case without additional delay.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Michael A. Sweyd
    3441 Colorado Avenue
    Turlock, CA 95382-8111
    (209) 669-0415



MTC-00026312

From: TERESA GOODRUM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Parties, If the break up of Microsoft would do for the 
computer industry what the break up of the Bell System has done for 
the telephony industry I say leave it intact. I understand that the 
reason that the Department of Justice becoming so deeply involved is 
to protect the American consumer and all the businesses that are 
involved with computer software and hardware but why do you not 
believe that we are capable of making our own choices. AT&T was 
once an industry giant and had a vast well of designers, engineers, 
infrastructure, research and development as well as technicians, 
representatives and operators. Now they are so minor of a player in 
their original core industry that they have become pitiful. And as 
more of their offshoots combine back into larger players than they 
were to be allowed and the ``regional'' competitors are 
falling by the wayside through mergers and bancruptcy procedures how 
can you not see that the same thing may befall the improved version 
of Microsoft that you think we need to have. All consumers and 
investors would once again see tremendous potential again elude them 
and be left buying part A from one division and compatible part B 
from another division.
    Let the public decide and leave Microsoft intact.
    Thank you for your time.
    Teresa R Goodrum
    14979 W Vera Cruz Ct
    New Berlin, WI 53151



MTC-00026313

From: Rick Roehrig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to add my objection to the proposed settlement of US v 
Microsoft. The terms of the settlement would neither punish 
Microsoft for its illegal actions as a monopoly, nor prevent 
Microsoft from continuing these illegal actions in the future.
    Richard Roehrig
    Pensacola, FL



MTC-00026314

From: Bill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have followed the issues surrounding the MicroSoft anti-trust 
suit and related information since the early 90's. I feel that this 
company, MicroSoft, has long been allowed to terrorize the entire 
computer/electronic industry. This has to be stopped! There has to 
be limits on what one powerful company can do to bend the will of 
independent manufacturers and citizens. MS seems to use every legal 
trick in the book to prevent competition with their software. 
Classifying the license agreements, as to how OEM's can install 
boot-loaders on systems that they manufacture and sell, as 
intellectual property is absurd. Altering commodity protocols for 
the benefit of locking users to their software is absurd! 
Restricting an OEM as to how and when they can sell a naked PC is 
absurd. I do not use Windows! When I purchased my most recent PC, 
that was destined to run Linux exclusively, I was forced to also 
purchase Windows 98SE. I did not even receive a usable version of 
Win98, if I was to ever choose to use that software. I instead 
received a recovery disk which is mostly worthless. People call it 
the MicroSoft tax. I can not think of a more appropriate term!
    MicroSoft, in my opinion, is the worst kind of monopolizing 
threat to global Internet stability. They repeatedly use market 
share to crush competition and options, forcing their average 
quality and usually flawed software on the masses. If Microsoft is 
allowed to

[[Page 27789]]

continue unrestrained, I think this will have a long term, 
devastating effect on both the global economy and security of the 
Internet. An electric power provider would never be allowed to 
manipulate, with embrace and extend tactics, secret/proprietary 
electricity that only worked with their devices. Nor would they be 
allowed to slowly corrupt that moving standard to eliminate all 
competition. MicroSoft should not be allowed to do the exact same 
thing with computers, electronic technology and the Internet.
    MicroSoft must be restrained and controlled as they have proven 
time and time again that they cannot act responsibly! They do not 
innovate, they destroy and rename the lack of options innovation!!!!
    Best Regards,
    Bill



MTC-00026315

From: Sharlene Shannon
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sharlene Shannon
32056 Pacific Coast Hwy.
Malibu, CA 90265
January 26, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall 
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more 
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Sharlene Shannon



MTC-00026316

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
76TH STREET
LUBBOCK, TX 79424
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The government has 
unfairly targeted Microsoft and punishing them for rising to the top 
of their industry. Simply because Microsoft built a better mousetrap 
and reaped the rewards does not mean that they have broken any laws. 
This is a case of government over regulation, not hurt consumers.
    A settlement has been reached and the terms are fair. Microsoft 
has agreed to design future versions of Windows to be more 
compatible with non-Microsoft products. Microsoft has also agreed to 
several changes in the way they do business with computer makers. 
Microsoft has agreed to many concessions. It is time that the 
government accepts the settlement and moves on. Microsoft and the 
technology industry need to move forward, the only way to move 
forward is to put this issue in the past. Please allow Microsoft to 
get back to business as usual, accept the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement Why punish Microsoft for achieving the American dream by 
starting from scratch and building such a State of the Art product? 
Everyone has the same opportunity.
    Sincerely,
    Lavada Burdett
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026317

From: douglasross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
16 Fort Street
Springfield, MA 01103-1208
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in favor of the Department of Justice's decision to settle 
the Microsoft antitrust case. The case has dragged on for long 
enough. Obviously, Microsoft has the resources to continue the 
litigation for an extended period of time. I would rather see the 
taxpayers'' money spent on other endeavors.
    I do not believe the government fully understood the 
technological issues involved in this suit. The Department of 
Justice's position was comprised by this lack of understanding. 
Given this disparity, the best course of action is settlement. The 
terms of the settlement agreement appear reasonable enough. For 
example, Microsoft has agreed to allow computer makers and consumers 
to replace features of Microsoft software with that of Microsoft's 
competitors. This will result in opening up the competition. The 
reality of the situation is that we live in a Microsoft world. The 
settlement provides mechanisms for Microsoft's competitors to 
compete in this world. Microsoft's agreement to disclose interfaces 
that are internal to the Windows operating system products will also 
achieve this end.
    I support the DOJ's efforts toward resolving this litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas Ross



MTC-00026318

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I inadvertently omitted the subject line in a previous message 
so am resending this to be sure it is received. I support any action 
possible against Microsoft. My first computer was an Imac and I 
wanted to use Netscape as my browser, but the computer was set up 
for Explorer. It took hours of work to get things set up for 
Netscape. A less tenacious person would have given up and settled 
for Explorer. Microsoft had an unfair advantage in my opinion. Thank 
you for your efforts.
    Sincerely,
    Marilyn Wolf



MTC-00026319

From: Simon Lemond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:10pm
Subject: MIcrosoft Settlement
    I disagree with the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I think 
they broke the law and the remedy should be that they are forced to 
open their system to the applications of others. They should provide 
full and open disclosure of the interfaces needed to optimize 
applications with all of the various windows operating systems. They 
should have to pay back the DOJ for the costs of the lawsuit. They 
shouls have to put money into a fund to nurture outside development 
of applications, either by individuals or other corporations.
    Microsoft has repeatedly engaged in illegal, unfair, and shady 
practices. They will continue to run roughshod over any competition 
unless they are restricted from doing so. I want to se Bill Gates 
removed from the company entirely, and their plans and strategy 
should be published at least six months before any new products are 
released.
    They should be forced to deal with the security holes they have 
left in Windows, InternetExplorer, and Outlook. They need to close 
these holes or pay damages to victims. They should have to fund a 
group to improve security and prevent malicious hacking.
    Simon Checkner



MTC-00026320

From: Casey Fleming
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Comments on the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement:
    I have owned two small businesses. In both cases the software 
required to run the business was simply not built for the Apple or 
Unix-based platforms. Thus, due to the particular nature of our 
industry, we found the Microsoft platform the only reasonable 
alternative. It was expensive to buy, and expensive to maintain 
because of it's instability. I have bought Microsoft for years

[[Page 27790]]

not because I think highly of the product, but because I never had 
any real choice.
    The extra expense reduced our ability to add staffing when it 
would have been very helpful, and it cut deeply into profits which 
could have gone to further expand the business.
    In a very real way, Microsoft's predatory monopoly practices 
cost jobs in our community and drained investment capital away re-
investment that would have benefitted both our community and our 
industry.
    They suck resources (money and time) away from true productive 
labor, and harm small businesses in very tangible ways. Forget 
anecdotal evidence; I have no doubt that a disinterested study of 
small businesses would yield significant data suggesting that 
Microsoft's practices are costing hundreds of thousands of jobs and 
billions of dollars in losses every year, particularly in the small 
business community.
    The settlement with Microsoft must guarantee that they can never 
again target and destroy other businesses to stifle competition. A 
breakup of the company seems the only reasonable alternative to 
those of us in the small business community that have directly 
suffered from their actions.
    Sincerely,
    Casey Fleming
    Former president, Independent Property Services, Inc.
    Former CEO, Loanguide.com,. Inc.



MTC-00026321

From: Jennifer Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I feel the Microsoft settlement before you has serious flaws, 
and I urge you to reject it. There is no provision to ensure that 
their anti-competitive activity won't continue. Every court has 
agreed that Microsoft has used its monopoly powers to reap unjust 
profits, yet the company is now being allowed to keep those profits. 
Please strike down the proposed final judgement as it fails to 
benefit those Microsoft has wronged--consumers like myself.
    Respectfully,
    Jennifer L. Smith
    401 Eden Road
    Apt.L-3
    Lancaster, Pa. 17602
    717-581-5893



MTC-00026323

From: Thelma Stevens
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/26/02 6:16pm
Subject: No subject was specified.
    Microsoft Settlement:
    Dear Sirs: We have studied the terms of the Microsoft settlement 
and believe it is fair and just.and good for our economy and our 
country.
    We hope that you and your committee will back it fully.
    Sincerely,
    Thelma and Nelson Stevens
    Barrington, IL 60010



MTC-00026324

From: Tom Hemmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a computer professional, i have seen the effects of the anti-
competitive behavior caused by microsoft. numerous companies with 
useful and innovative products have been swallowed or ground down by 
the ruthless, and by the courts definition, illegal practices of 
microsoft. The current settlement does not go far enough in ensuring 
that the monopolistic practices do not continue. This settlement has 
led me to conclude that that the DOJ and Ashcroft are lapdogs for 
big business, the proposed settlement is for political purposes and 
that the DOJ does not care about curbing monopolies for the benefit 
of the consumer.



MTC-00026325

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Senior settlement
    Don't you think it is about time to settle this law suit and get 
on with business? I do. So lets get going.
    William H. Adams



MTC-00026326

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    John Gaynor
    8100 Ridgefield Road
    Pensacola, FL 32514-6849



MTC-00026327

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Mathew Saari
    33114 Village 33
    Camarillo, CA 93012-7212



MTC-00026328

From: Lee Lamb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    I would like to register my position regarding any proposed anti 
trust settlement with Microsoft.
    I will be brief. Microsoft thinks it is above the law. The rules 
of law are for the little people, not for them. They have 
consistently used their position to ruin competitors. When they 
began bundling Internet Explorer with Windows 95. It really didn't 
work, but because it was part of the system people who didn't know 
any better used it anyway. So Netscape went from being the major 
player to a minor player in a very short period of time. Microsoft 
has always used this method of attack. Bundle a product that isn't 
ready with windows, overwhelm a proven product, subject the user to 
security holes, make small improvements to the product over several 
years, force the competition to accept a minor role in the market, 
and call this innovation. This system would be tolerable if the 
software didn't have so many security flaws that it subjects the 
individual, the family, the company, the government to having it's 
most sensitive information at risk.
    If the law is the law. Microsoft needs to be made an example of 
because it has flaunted its'' disregard law, the consumer, and 
humanity.
    Thank you,
    Lee Lamb
    16252 Vintage Dr
    Plainfield, IL 60544



MTC-00026329

From: Byles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to accept the antitrust settlement agreed to. I feel 
this is a fair proposal and we need to move on!
    Nancy Byles
    770 Briercliff Lane
    Lake Oswego, OR 97034



MTC-00026330

From: Gregory Ritts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:31pm

[[Page 27791]]

Subject: consent decree
    The settlement seems like a fair, negotiated settlement. It 
seems that each side made some compromises, and that MS will be 
prevented from overreaching conduct. This settlement ought to be 
adopted, and the additional remedies proposed by the states and DC 
rejected.
    Gregory Ritts



MTC-00026331

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that it is in the interest of the American public to 
complete the Microsoft settlement. This company has done more for 
our economy than we can even comprehend, and has helped innumerable 
children in its various benevolent programs. It has helped me 
personally to enhance my computer skills to help children I have 
tutored.
    Nadalyn M. Cotten



MTC-00026332

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    01/26/2002
    Honorable U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly; I am 
writing you to ``throw out'' the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. This settlement is not in the best interest of the 
people of the United States. It, surely, is not in the best interest 
of our free market system. Thank you for allowing me to make this 
comment.
    Sincerely,
    Robert L. Hemus



MTC-00026333

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Suzanne Winkler
    3404 Zircon Ln
    Rockford, IL 61102



MTC-00026334

From: Tim Rain
To: Microsoft ATR, Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Netw...
Date: 1/26/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Original Message
From: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network
To: `[email protected]''
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 17:12
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. The public comment period for this issue ends on 
January 28th. Please send in your letter as soon as is convenient.
    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.usoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm
    5208 Hwy, 441 N.
    Okeechobee, FL 34972
    January 26, 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 opinion about the recent antitrust 
case settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. 
I think the lawsuit has dragged on too long and it is time for the 
government to stop interfering in big business. We live in a 
capitalist society where free enterprise reigns.
    Microsoft's competitors could not have delivered products and 
services at the same level as Microsoft and suffered so. Now, they 
are whining and spending huge amounts of money to lobby politicians 
and lawmakers to even the playing field. This simply is not right. 
Why isn't the Government getting involved with the big corporate 
takeovers and buy out's and especially Wal-Mart. What about the Oil 
company's they can do whatever they want and get the price's they 
want. Is this the case of Kitty in the woodpile?
    The terms of the settlement will force Microsoft to give up 
technological secrets they have spent valuable time and money 
developing. It also prohibits them from entering into agreements 
obligating third parties to exclusively distribute Microsoft's 
products. This is a violation of free market principles.
    Although I feel the terms of the settlement are flawed, I think 
implementation is the best way of serving the interests of the 
public. The alternative to further litigation would cost our nation 
too much. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Tim Rain



MTC-00026335

From: Dianne Lane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having a Mac allows me to avoid the Windows OS. My operating 
system came with both Explorer and Netscape. However, when clicking 
a link or attachment the default goes to Explorer. This is, of 
course, only a tiny example of Microsoft domination. Since I try to 
avoid any Microsoft product and do not wish to be forced to use one, 
I trashed it. Unfortunately, it is impossible for most PC users to 
find software other than that made by Microsoft. Please make it 
possible to improve our computer technology by giving competition a 
chance.
    Sincerely,
    Dianne Lane
    San Jose, California



MTC-00026336

From: Dan Jacobs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I urge you to make the terms of the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement broader than the proposed settlement, which I believe 
doesn't serve the public interest in its current form. The currently 
proposed settlement uses language which leaves gaping holes where 
predatory practices could continue to be used against competitors, 
simply because they compete against products that weren't specified 
in the settlement. The public interest would best be served by 
Microsoft agreeing to abandon all of its predatory practices, not 
just those mentioned in the proposed settlement, as well as 
abandoning its predatory practices against all competitors, not just 
those who compete with the Microsoft products mentioned in the 
proposed settlement.
    Thank you,
    Daniel E. Jacobs
    3322 Cavan Dr.
    St. Ann, MO 63074



MTC-00026337

From: Edward McClanahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have seen many arguments arguing for and against the idea that 
Microsoft is a monopoly. My argument is that it acts like a 
monopoly, uses its market power like a monopoly, its competitors and 
customers fear it like a monopoly, and therefore for all

[[Page 27792]]

practical purposes is a monopoly. Thank you for your time.
    From the outer realms of Cyberspace,
    Edward McClanahan
    [email protected]



MTC-00026338

From: Kurt Freund
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    It is incomprehensible that the Justice Department caved in to 
Microsoft with a toothless settlement that will do nothing for the 
consumer. I can only assume that Microsoft's political contributions 
and lobbying had much to do with it. The company has again and again 
shown that it has no respect for the law, the courts, its 
competitors, or its customers. Judge Jackson might have made 
inappropriate comments based on his (quite understandable) annoyance 
at Microsoft, but his findings of fact are clearly correct, which 
was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
    I would like to comment on something that has been mentioned 
less often than other aspects of the case ? Microsoft's domination 
of productivity software with its Office suite, which contains Word 
(word processor), Excel (spreadsheet), Outlook (email client), 
PowerPoint (business presentations), Publisher (publishing), 
Internet Explorer (of course), and a few other tidbits. Suppose you 
like one of those products, such as Word. YOU CANNOT BUY IT! The 
only way to get any of the programs (except IE) is to buy the entire 
suite. And if you buy the suite to get Word, you also have the other 
programs, whether you like them or not. Considering the price of 
Office (much higher than the cost of just the word processor would 
be), you are unlikely to buy another spreadsheet or database 
program. Faced with that, how many companies are willing to invest 
in creating a quality competing version of any one of the suite 
products? Not many, as you would quickly find by doing some 
shopping.
    Microsoft can indulge in that kind of extortion because of its 
monopoly of operating systems and its predatory business practices. 
If another company did produce a decent word processor that 
challenged Word, it is not hard to imagine that Word would soon be 
available as a separate product and at a price that no other company 
could match. Microsoft has stifled innovation and produced mediocre, 
bug-ridden, defective software for many years, and people continue 
to buy it because there are no reasonable alternatives. I strongly 
appeal to the court to reject the Justice Department's proposed 
settlement and impose restrictions and penalties on Microsoft that 
are commensurate with their offenses and that will help to create 
true competition in the software market.
    Thank you.
    Kurt Freund
    8240 Rhoda Avenue
    Dublin, CA 94568-1004
    Phone: 925-829-6284
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00026339

From: Ellen Vande Kieft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I have grown to really enjoy my computer and the ability to get 
all sorts of information about the whole wide world. But the reason 
I could do so was due to Microsoft and their fantastic software. If 
I had to install each feature by myself, I could never do so as I am 
not a ``techie''. What are all the competitors of 
Microsoft screaming about, they are complaining because they have 
failed to come up with a better product and are looking to the 
government to fight their battle for them. Please allow Microsoft to 
continue to innovate so that the consumers like me can continue to 
benefit.
    AOL is seeing green at Microsoft's cash and wants the DOL to 
help them get a share.
    Ellen Vandekieft
    San Mateo, Ca 94403
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026340

From: Roger Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement comments
    I write to complain regarding the DoJ's dangerously cynical 
sellout of the American people.
    The DoJ's toothless settlement snatches defeat from the jaws of 
victory by shortselling the merits on many counts. Among the many 
sad weaknesses is API sharing, which is a great idea, but is badly 
designed. Gaining access to the APIs is made far too difficult and 
is then rendered nearly worthless by requiring sharing of the 
finished code with Microsoft. The anti-non-profit language in 
Section III(J)(2) wipes out Linux and many other OSes competing with 
Windows. The anti-government language there is also unforgivable. 
The settlement does not begin to account for the damage done to 
competitors like Apple.
    There are countless more fatal errors with the settlement. 
Please withdraw it.
    Roger Stewart
    2403 Greenlee Dr
    Austin TX 78703



MTC-00026341

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
    I am a subscriber of AOL but do not agree with them or anyone 
else that is inclined to make Microsoft the scapegoat for all the 
problems that face the industry in regard to competition. Where 
would the industry be now if Microsoft never existed? While AOL 
charges Microsoft with ``anticompetitive conduct,'' it has 
fought the efforts of Microsoft in the improvement of instant 
messaging. Which is a big inconvenience to anyone using the Internet 
for correspondence. This is only a way that AOL uses its 
anticompetitive conduct.
    I am asking for your help in throwing out AOL's recent 
litigation against Microsoft.
    Joyce O. Thedy



MTC-00026342

From: Helen McKay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:52pm
Subject: Unfair to Microsoft
    I do not like what is happening with Microsoft by our governent. 
It seems that when young people use their brains to invest something 
for the good of the nation, those in charge do all they can to 
destroy the Young people.
    Here in Memphis, Tenn. we have a level of people with their 
hands out to the government and it has to supply them with homes, 
food on their tables, their kids in child care and teenagers in 
College all the government expense.
    Here are a couple of young people contributing to the good of 
everyone and the govenment comes down on them and takes away the 
money they have made. Doesn't the government spend enough money to 
care for those who will not use their brains, or work. Why does the 
government go after the Microsoft people. Microsoft will listen and 
has done what is right, but because others want on Microsoft 
bandwagen it is split up.
    The government did that with the Telephone company, now we can't 
get the operator when we need service, or want to have a phone bill 
correct. The phone service is rotten and we have to listen to all of 
the mess on those automated phone. The govenment did not have the 
right to split up the phone company, it was a good one and people 
got serve. Now, we have junk pay phones that will not return the 
money you drop into the phone. We can't get the parties we want 
because of something wrong. No operators will help us because we 
can't get them. And the rates are high to even get long distance 
numbers. Why doesn't the government leave those who have the 
intelligence to create something good along. No, the government has 
to support those in Memphis who are too lazy to work. Or the city 
waste money on arena for basketball teams or some other white 
elephant us taxpayers have to buy. So not the government has gone 
after Microsoft to destroy them and bring into the market some more 
junk, like the junky phones.
    Sincerely,
    Ms. McKay
    583 No. Merton Street
    Memphis, Tenn. 38112



MTC-00026343

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Short but sweet: Do NOT break up Windows.
    It would make the computer environment a lot less user friendly, 
especially for all of the Seniors in my computer beginners class.
    J. C. Lawrence



MTC-00026344

From: David Sallak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, I am writing to voice my concern regarding the settlement 
of the lawsuit by the Federal Government of the United States and 
nine individual States against Microsoft

[[Page 27793]]

Corp. Among the many flaws contained in the settlement, I will focus 
on one ? the creation of an oversight group to ensure that Microsoft 
no longer violates procedures for which it has been found guilty. 
This oversight group has no enforcement capability. All they are 
empowered to do is to point out that if Microsoft has violated one 
or more of the conditions of the settlement, then this will be 
brought to the attention of the U.S. Justice Department for review. 
And what, file ANOTHER lawsuit? This one has already taken more than 
three years, so Microsoft has incentive to violate conditions of 
this settlement ? competition can be eliminated via Microsoft1s 
predatory approach to the consumer and business markets, well before 
any future litigation has an opportunity to stop Microsoft1s actions 
in time to save consumers any monetary losses due to lack of 
competition, or save business competitors from extinction due to 
Microsoft1s chokehold on their Windows platform.
    Microsoft should be bound to terms of an agreement that enables 
the oversight group to enforce monetary penalties upon Microsoft, 
payable to the Federal Government and participating States, if 
Microsoft breaks any terms of this agreement. No other form of 
penalty is understood by Microsoft ? they are too big to appreciate 
any penalty other than financial.
    You are spending my tax dollars to prevent future anti-
competitive behavior by Microsoft, a company found GUILTY of 
breaking the laws of the Sherman AntiTrust Act by the Federal 
Government of the United States. Enforce this law to its limits.
    Thank you,
    David Sallak
    President, SNS Corporation
    Villa Park, IL
    630-567-0984
    [email protected]



MTC-00026345

From: J. Harrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    My name is Jeffrey Harrison and I run a company called 23 
Skidoo, Inc. Up until recently my company focused entirely on web 
development. Recently we have changed into other markets but as a 
web developer I have had to deal with the constant borage of crap 
from Microsoft and the biddings of Bill Gates. Their products rarely 
ever work right. Their web browser rarely ever plays by the rules 
and I am constantly loosing time and money because of them. As a 
result of their poor operating system I have abandoned their 
platform all together in my office. I now use Apple computers and 
here's something really surprising......THEY ACTUALLY WORK, DON'T 
CRASH, AND I HAVE YET TO GET A VIRUS! I would constantly miss 
deadlines because of something Microsoft machines would decide to do 
at the last second. Thereby costing me a lot of money. And because 
of what they do I have to charge more to my customers. If they would 
have been playing by the rules instead of whatever they decided was 
in their interest development costs for thousands of companies would 
be much less. And I am greatly disappointed in our own justice 
system as of late.
    Microsoft has been getting away with murder for years now. It's 
not fair to the public and it's not fair to small business.... which 
employs the majority of the United States last time I checked. You 
need to set an example with Microsoft. You still need to break them 
up. And you need to throw out Bill Gates if at all possible. He 
doesn't care about you.... he doesn't care about me.... and he sure 
as hell doesn't give a crap about the fact that he sells such a 
crappy product to so many people. If you let him go on he is just 
going to do the same things he has been doing for years now. And 
that is to stiffel innovation. He doesn't innovate. He steals ideas. 
And he crushes other companies that offer something superior before 
they get a chance to even come to life. They do not do anything to 
help the market place. If anything they have helped to destroy it. 
Hell..... if you take a look around you can go to hacker sites that 
give you a little string of code that can take down major servers 
around the globe that use Microsoft software. What kind of company 
sells such a bad product for so long w/o being penalized?. I 
mean.... if your car's wheels fell off once a day.... would you 
still drive that car? This is ridiculous. I can only wonder if you 
have been paid off like so many other politicians and judges that 
have let so much of what they do to people just slide.
    I am really disappointed in what this country has become. It is 
a joke.... it is a travesty..... and it is just plain sad that 
Microsoft has been able to slip through the system of supposed 
checks and balances for so long without getting so much as a slap on 
the wrist.
    BREAK MICROSOFT APART.....MAKE THEIR CODE OPEN.... WATCH THEM 
LIKE A HAWK....FINE THE HELL OUT OF THEM.... AND DON'T LET MICROSOFT 
AND BILL GATES KEEP SCREWING US ALL.
    Thank you,
    Jeffrey Harrison
Jeffrey Harrison
President & CEO
23 Skidoo, Inc.
http://www.23skidoo.com
445 Round Rock West Dr.
Round Rock, TX 78681
USA
Phone:512-733-2322
Fax:512-733-2321



MTC-00026346

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs/MS:
    As a taxpayer, Microsoft user, and as a stock holder I would 
like to submit my opinion that the settlement agreed to with the 
justice Department should be fair enough for all states. Please end 
the litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Alden G.
    Cockburn, MD



MTC-00026347

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:54pm
Subject: Support For the Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    This is to express support for final acceptance of the 
settlement between Microsoft, the Department of Justice, and the 
nine states. We urge you not to reject this settlement as any delays 
will not serve the interests of the American people but serve to 
further the causes of Microsoft's competitors who continue to choose 
to compete in the courts instead of the marketplace.
    The American people are insulted by claims that we have been 
harmed by Microsoft. In truth, we have been harmed by their 
competitors who have stalled progress in technology and in the 
economy. These suits must not be allowed to continue. Before said 
suits, our country experienced unparalleled growth and prosperity. 
Our country regained its dominance in technology due to the 
innovation and growth of Microsoft and the many companies supporting 
their operating systems.
    We respectfully urge you to help return our country towards 
prosperity by rejecting further lawsuits and further delays in 
acceptance of the anti-trust settlement.
    Edward J. Barsano, CEO
    NeuralTick, Inc.



MTC-00026348

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    We support Microsoft and hope the DOJ does the same.



MTC-00026349

From: neil sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
P.O.Box 925
Allyn, WA 98524
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was pleased to see the Department of Justice has made the wise 
decision to settle the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. In my opinion, 
the DOJ was way off base in its decision to file this case. 
Notwithstanding this belief, I am supportive of the terms of the 
settlement agreement, and I looking forward to a resolution of this 
case. Microsoft has agreed to a variety of concessions in the 
interest of moving forward. They have agreed to change their 
business practices to quell concerns of anticompetitive behavior. 
They agreed to not retaliate against those who promote, distribute, 
or sell software that competes with Windows. They also agreed not to 
enforce many of their intellectual property rights.
    Through the settlement agreement, Microsoft has answered the 
concerns about predatory business practices. Nothing more

[[Page 27794]]

should be done beyond the terms of the settlement agreement.
    I would suggest that in the future the Government not base their 
lawsuits on the word of competitors and give some thought to the 
facts such as the user public was being well served and this 
special-interest litigation is sure to cost the users more in the 
long run.
    Sincerely,
    Neil J. Sullivan



MTC-00026350

From: Constance La Lena
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft anti-trust settlement should NOT include anything 
that would give Microsoft more unfair advantage than they already 
have. The current proposal to have Microsoft provide computers and 
software to schools would do just that. Microsoft now does not have 
a big presence in schools--Apple does. What the proposed 
settlement would do is extend Microsoft's monopoly into the one area 
where it does not presently monopolize the market.
    Bad decision!
    Constance La Lena
    [email protected]



MTC-00026351

From: Harvey G. Spencer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do the reasonable thing and settle the Microsoft suits as 
Microsoft has proposed.



MTC-00026352

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is Enough
    I am a subscriber of AOL but do not agree with them or anyone 
else that is inclined to make Microsoft the scapegoat for all the 
problems that face the industry in regards to competition. Where 
would the industry be now if microsoft never exited?
    While AOL charges Microsoft with ``anticompetitive 
conduct,'' it has fought the efforts of Microsoft to the 
improvement of instant messaging, which is a big inconvience to 
anyone using the internet for correspondence . This is only a way 
that AOL uses ITS anticompetitive conduct.
    I am asking for your help in throwing out AOL's recent 
litigation against Microsoft.
    Respectfully,
    Hermon L. Thedy



MTC-00026353

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I have purchased Microsoft products for many years, their 
roducts are far superior than any other products on the market. I do 
not feel that they have done any wrong in this situation. They 
attempt to innovate and improve the PC and software industry.
    Its only the those that are unable to keep pace with Microsoft 
that want to alter the ``playing field''. So can you tell 
me what the difference is that microsoft has internet explorer on 
some PC's and other PC's have AOL as the default. When I purchased 
this PC I was forced into using AOL, and I did not like it so I 
removed it. PS. My next upgrade will be microsoft XP.



MTC-00026354

From: Elinor Bickley
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/26/02 7:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elinor Bickley
Rt/ 11. Box 210
Santa Fe, NM 97501
January 26, 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,
    Elinor M. Bickley



MTC-00026355

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a user of Windows and the IE Browser for the past 
three years having used Netscape prior to that.
    As much as I have understood of the settlement proposed between 
the Department of Justice and Microsoft it seems fair and 
reasonable. I am satisfied that if I over paid for Windows according 
to the allegations of antitrust and competitor arguments it was 
probably a small amount, besides I have had stability of my system 
and automatic recovery (Win 95, 98) that give me peace of mind.
    If Microsoft has been a monopoly it has been a beneficient one 
to me as the consumer.
    Stan Rubenstein
    White Plains, NY



MTC-00026356

From: Nathan Z
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not allow the Microsoft settlement. It will just give 
Microsoft more leverage and not allow companies like Apple Computer 
or the Open source movement headed by the Linux Operating System to 
ever take a respectable part of the market. Microsoft is bad for 
consumers and America. I, and many others believe this and hope that 
you take our pleads seriously. Thank you for your time.
    Nathan Zamecnik



MTC-00026357

From: Keith Nasman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust/Settlement
    Microsoft's predatory actions aside, additional focus needs to 
be on how its monopoly can stifle communication. If the dominant 
format for document communication is a Microsoft Word document, then 
so be it. The more important issue is Microsoft's control of the 
format. I believe all public communications formats should be open. 
Microsoft should be forced to open their formats to the world so 
that other companies or groups can write software to interact with 
those formats. It is an unfair use of their market dominance to 
allow them to stifle communications to their own advantage.
    Microsoft needs more than just a pat on the hand.
    Sincerely,
    Keith Nasman



MTC-00026358

From: Phillip Bashor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:13pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
7 Highland Avenue
Darien, CT 06820-4707
January 26, 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 support Microsoft in this dispute and 
would like to see this three-year litigation battle come to an end. 
I support the settlement that was reached in November as a means to 
end this dispute. Microsoft has agreed to all terms of this 
settlement. Under this agreement, Microsoft must grant computer 
makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to promote non- 
Microsoft software programs that compete with programs included 
within Windows. Computer makers will now be free to remove the means 
by which consumers access various features of Windows, such as 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser, Windows Media Player and 
Windows Messenger. Microsoft has also agreed to disclose information 
about certain internal interfaces in Windows. A technical oversight

[[Page 27795]]

committee has been created to monitor Microsoft compliance. This 
settlement will serve in the best public interest. I am a believer 
of free enterprise and do not want to see this company punished for 
being successful. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Phillip Bashor



MTC-00026359

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.......
    Judge..... anyone who give's MSFT settlement a clean bill of 
health and that it follows the intent of the John V. Tunney act, 
after reading John V. Tunney say that MSFT's actions are 
``inadequate'', would be the greatest miscarriage of 
justice of all time...... THIS SETTLEMENT IS POLITICALLY 
MOTIVATED... there is no other case that this is more clear 
on....... please do not mistake this settlement for any thing other 
than what it is....... a miscarriage of justice....... Former 
California Senator Accuses Microsoft By Kristi Heim, San Jose 
Mercury News, Calif.
    Jan. 26--Microsoft's failure to disclose all its contacts 
with the government directly contradicts the intention of a federal 
law designed to prevent the influence of lobbying on antitrust 
settlements, the former California senator who wrote the law said 
Friday.
    John V. Tunney, who wrote the antitrust legislation known as the 
Tunney Act in 1972 and is now a business executive, called 
Microsoft's brief disclosure of its lobbying activities 
``inadequate'' in an affidavit filed with the Justice 
Department this week.
    jon.



MTC-00026360

From: Yaakov Nemoy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, Yaakov Nemoy, of Fairfield CT, believe that the proposed 
settlement is in extreme error. You cannot deny the specific 
practices that Microsoft has taken, though they do not do this 
anymore, such as forcing computer manufacturers to install only 
Windows. Microsoft needs to pay for this massive amount of damage 
done to the computer market, and this settlement will not fully 
compensate for it.



MTC-00026361

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:17pm
Subject: Tunney act is Fair and reasonable
    Please vote to quash the ongoing lswsuits and attempts at 
lawsuit which interfere with the governments ability to end this 
expensive litigation
    Yours John C. Allen



MTC-00026362

From: Sherry Hamilton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sherry Hamilton
3195 Dayton-Xenia Rd. #900-114
Dayton, OH 45434
January 26, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall 
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more 
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Sherry Hamilton



MTC-00026363

From: Tom Hamilton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tom Hamilton
3195 Dayton-Xenia Rd. #900-114
Dayton, OH 45434
January 26, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall 
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more 
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Hamilton



MTC-00026364

From: Arthur J. Saulsberry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html



MTC-00026365

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Judy Joki
    16222 29th Dr. SE
    Mill Creek, WA 98012-7824



MTC-00026366

From: Edward Bauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I feel the proposed settlement with Microsoft is fair and 
fulfills the finding of the court. I'm upset by the political nature 
of the lawsuit and the uneven application of monopoly standards to 
many of the parties that testified against Microsoft in this suit. I 
recognize these comments mean little with the judgment and 
settlement at hand, but I would like to record strong criticism of 
the people in the anti-trust group that have given many unhappy 
computer companies that couldn't compete a free pass. Everyone seems 
to forget that IBM with its OS2 operating system was the goliath 
trying to slay David in the original go round, and I didn't see the 
government screaming to level the playing field against IBM when 
they owned all the computer markets. Again, I hope that the DOJ 
begins a more reasoned and responsible approach to litigation in the 
future, and I hope that a judge with a modicum of commercial and 
technical capability hears

[[Page 27796]]

the case. A judge that can discern the difference between a bunch of 
whiners and a person with a real complaint.
    Edward Bauer



MTC-00026367

From: Dick and Candy James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 26,2002
Attorney General Ashcroft, Justice Dept.
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my support for 
the settlement reached between the Dept. of Justice and the 
Microsoft Corporation. As a retired economic development consultant, 
I am aware of the importance of a prompt resolution of this 
antitrust dispute. Since the inception of this lawsuit, comfidence 
in the technology industry has decreased. The enactment of the 
settlement, then, will increase confidence in the industry once 
more. In the current period of recession, I believe that the focus 
of the Justice Dept. should be to focus on the rebuilding of our 
economy, rather than the continued waste of federal resources that 
further litigation would necessitate.
    Microsoft has been more than willing to make the concessions in 
an attempt to resolve this issue. Microsoft has agreed to disclose 
the protocols and internal interface design of the Windows system. 
The result of this will be that developers will now be able to 
develop hardware and software that is more compatible with the 
Windows system.
    Finally, I believe that the settlement is in the best interests 
of our economy. Please enact the settlement with haste.
    Sincerely,
    Lloyd Repman
    724 Walnut St.
    Edmonds, Wa. 98020



MTC-00026368

From: Flash Sheridan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Re: A FINFLASH FROM THE FREEDOM TO 
INNOVATE
    NETWORK
    I'm on one of Microsoft's mailing lists, but I believe that 
their behavior has been both illegal and unconscionable, and that 
any solution short of a breakup will be, in practice, unenforceable.



MTC-00026369

From: Betty P Fischer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft
    My opinion is that Microsoft should not be harassed any more. 
Let the litigation cease. Stop the legal battle.
    B. Fischer, Yuma, AZ



MTC-00026370

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:21pm
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,
    E. Lois Minnoe
    220 Channel Run Drive
    New Bern, NC 28562-8915



MTC-00026371

From: Green, Ira
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We strongly believe that the settlement of the suits against 
Microsoft be accepted by all parties NOW!!! We felt, that in the 
first place, the suit was improper. Further suits against Microsoft 
by the states are an improper use of taxpayers money. Users of 
software will be adversely affected. Microsoft puts out an 
outstanding product. Executives of Microsoft do not take exorbitant 
salaries as is happening in many other corporations. Our economy can 
not stand this continued the abuse of frivolous lawsuits.
    Thanks
    Ira & Wilma Green
    * (310)813-3278
    * 



MTC-00026372

From: Pedro O'Chonagaile
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:26pm Subject'' Microsoft Settlement.
    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://
explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.



MTC-00026372--0001

Peter Connelly
2519 Dexter Avenue N Apt. C
Seattle, WA 98109
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Microsoft antitrust case, which is currently awaiting 
resolution in the federal courts, is verging on the ridiculous. I 
find it hard to believe that the Department of Justice had nothing 
better to do with its time and money than to pursue Microsoft for 
three years straight. This has gone on for long enough.
    I ask you to support the proposed resolution, not because it is 
ideal, but because it represents the lesser of two evils. I would 
rather see a settlement reached now than face another extended 
period of useless, unwarranted litigation. Perhaps I would not be 
opposed to the suit continuing if there were an apparent purpose 
behind it; but I do not believe Microsoft has done anything to harm 
computer users.
    The proposed settlement is, I think, sufficient response to all 
claims of antitrust violation. Microsoft has agreed to a wide 
variety of terms and conditions in the settlement, some of which 
extend to products and procedures that were not found to be unlawful 
by the Court of Appeals. Such actions demonstrate a high degree of 
compliance on Microsoft's part. They have made sacrifices in the 
interest of wrapping up the case, and I do not believe that more 
sacrifice should be, or can be, required under the law. Both 
Microsoft and its competitors are dealt with fairly and justly in 
the proposed settlement. Microsoft has, for example, agreed not to 
enter into any contracts that would require a third party to 
distribute Microsoft products at a fixed percentage. Microsoft has 
also agreed to disclose internal interfaces from the Windows 
operating system for use by its competitors. The Windows operating 
system in future versions will support non- Microsoft software, and 
this interface disclosure will allow Microsoft competitors to 
maneuver within Microsoft's operating system and to introduce their 
own software into Windows.
    Absolutely no further action against Microsoft is necessary on 
the federal level. Again, I ask you and your office to support the 
agreement and address other issues.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Connelly



MTC-00026372--0002



MTC-00026373

From: Ann Randall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am appalled at the settlement proposed to settle the Justice 
Department's suit against Microsoft. It seems to me all the 
difficult, pricey work has already been done by the Department, and 
all that's left is for just about any objective judge to impose a 
monopoly-breaking penalty. Instead, it seems the department is ready 
to say: ``OK guys, we won. Just say ``nuff, and promise to 
do better next time.'' Meanwhile, Microsoft's arrogance 
continues, proving the point that they will not stop their anti-
competitive practices unless forced to do so. (Examples: increased 
integration on XP that forces ever more use of Microsoft products; 
the amazing attempt to settle their dispute by further extending 
Microsoft influence in schools, one stronghold of Apple computers).
    I worked for government many years, and we found that the only 
preventive measures that worked were penalties that took the profit 
out of noncompliance. Any penalty short of a profit-breaking penalty 
is simply a cost of doing business.
    Ann Randall
    2008 Pine St
    Billings MT

[[Page 27797]]



MTC-00026374

From: mllawler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:27pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement >
> 2008 W Falls Avenue
> Kennewick, WA 99336-3042
> (509) 735-7932 > > >
> January 23, 2002
> Attorney General John Ashcroft
> US Department of Justice,
> 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20530-0001 > >
> Dear Mr. Ashcroft: >
    > I support the Department of Justice's efforts to settle the 
Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. Enough time and money has been spent on 
this case, and nothing more will be gained by continued litigation. 
>
    > The terms of the settlement agreement are quite reasonable. 
Microsoft has agreed to change its business practices so it will be 
easier for the competition to compete with Microsoft's products. 
Microsoft also agreed > to document and disclose internal 
interfaces to its competitors. In addition Microsoft agreed not to 
enter into contracts, which would require third parties to 
exclusively sell Windows products. There is little danger that 
Microsoft will violate antitrust laws once the settlement is 
approved.
    A technical review committee will be created to ensure 
Microsoft's compliance with the terms of the agreement. In the event 
concerns arise that Microsoft is not complying with the law, 
complaints may be lodged with the review committee for 
investigation. Nothing more should be required of Microsoft beyond 
the provisions of the settlement agreement. >
    > What our economy needs now is stimulation. Allowing 
Microsoft to get back to business will certainly help stimulate the 
economy. Thank you for your efforts to bring this case to a 
conclusion. >
    > Sincerely, >
    > Marie Lawler
    > 2008 W. Falls Ave
    Kennewick, Wa.
    509-735-7932



MTC-00026375

From: David A Leidig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please bring this matter to the speediest conclusion and as soon 
as possible. The proposed remedy should be satisfactory. Further 
litigation is not likely to improve what has already been worked 
out.
    Thank you for your consideration.



MTC-00026376

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    ROBERT LANKFORD
    11901 SANTA MONICA BLVD #427
    LOS ANGELES, CA 90025



MTC-00026377

From: William Maryott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just want to go on record as being extremely upset with 
Microsofts behavior and with the lack of integrity by the legal 
profession to put any restraints on this dishonest and powerful 
Corporation. I am a retired IBM Engineer and I've been involved with 
every version of Windows back to Version 1.0.
    My computer crashes regularly and I have no alternatives but to 
continue using this poorly written and poorly supported code. If the 
operating system were separated from the applications, there would 
be a good chance this might get resolved. Otherwise I expect to just 
continue to suffer.
    William R. Maryott
    PO Box 1177
    Freedom, CA 95019



MTC-00026378

From: Forrest L Fuller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Nothing further is to be gained by dragging out the long 
Microsoft dispute any further. Accept the settlement and allow all 
parties to get back to work and get the economy going again. This 
costly battle benefits no one except the lawyers and lobbyists who 
are opposing a successful giant. We gain nothing by destroying what 
we have. accept the settlement. Forrest L. Fuller



MTC-00026379

From: Scott Ellsworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    My name is Scott Ellsworth. First of all I have spoken to many 
people about this Microsoft case. I have read literally hundreds of 
posts in chat forums and also spoke to many coworkers, friends and 
family members and they all are pretty much thinking the same thing 
Including my self.
    This is what we are thinking:
    1. Many people are puzzled about why Microsoft is allowed to 
give themselves their own punishment and think this is very unfair 
and suspicious.
    2. Most of these people know that Microsoft have purposely used 
illegal tactics to force companies out of business to take over 
businesses forced people to use their operating system and their 
other software and have stollen Apple computers operating system and 
other companies software. (The latest example of all this is 
Microsoft saying that for their own punishment that they would 
donate a couple of million dollars in used Wintel based PC's and 
software to needy Schools. Which in actuality this would cost barely 
nothing for Microsoft. This clearly shows that Microsoft was trying 
to make inroads into Education were other companies dominate such as 
Apple Computer).
    3. Most people DESPISE Bill Gates and Microsoft because of all 
this!
    4. Most people believe that Microsoft controls the world and is 
a modern day dictator and that this is a sad reality that no one is 
doing anything about. ( Which if you think about it is very true. 
Their operating system runs most of the worlds computers and most of 
the worlds every day businesses and home software such as Microsoft 
Office and Internet Explorer. All of this because of illegal 
tactics.
    5. Most people think that Microsoft should have been split up.
    6. Most people think that it is a mystery that
    Microsoft weaseled it's way out of being split up and they don't 
know how the court system could have possibly let this happen after 
they were found guilty other than that Microsoft had something to do 
with it (This is very suspicious).
    Punishment:
    Microsoft should give much more BILLIONS OF DOLLARS specified by 
the court system to schools that need computers but let the schools 
decide what NEW computers and software they want which does not 
necessarily have to be Wintel based computers running the Microsoft 
Windows operating system and Microsoft software programs. (This 
would greatly help our school systems).
    Microsoft should give Billions of dollars to help the companies 
that they caused to lose money, market share and other damages to.
    The court system should demand that Microsoft let Apple Computer 
own 50--60% of Microsoft. Since this is who they stollen and 
continue to steal till today, their operating system and innovation 
from. Microsoft is one of the worlds biggest if not the biggest and 
richest companies in the World they should be able to afford all of 
this. I think this is a fair Punishment.



MTC-00026380

From: Chris Sifnotis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:38pm
    Subject: I despise micosoft and they are just trying to horn in 
I despise micosoft and they are just trying to horn in on a market 
that it is not dominant in. I wish they were destroyed because they 
are ripping people off. when they charge $99/199 for an upgrade or 
$199/299 full software and linux viriants cost aproximately $69 and 
full versions of the mac os cost $129 or $69 for education something 
is wrong. I think the best

[[Page 27798]]

settlement is to take windows away from them. Make it public domain 
and every computer company should ship their own operating system. 
This would spur inovation and compitition to have the best os out 
there. Then each company would own the hole widget like Apple 
Computers. Or a smaller kick in microsofts teeth would be to donate 
10 billion (they do have 35 billion in cash) in all machintosh 
machines and software. provide training for schools that dont 
currently have machines. also microsoft should pay support and 
upgrade for the next 10 years and to prove it has abondoned its 
anticompitition practices. If microsoft has not satisfactorily 
complied they lose the rights to windows and if they do comply 
another 1 billion gets spred over all of the 50 states into their 
education programs.
    Dont let them play you for the fools. They are not friends of 
the people.
    Chris Sifnotis
    Student



MTC-00026381

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice; Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I am upset and dismayed at the cave in by the Justice Department 
in the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement.
    Microsoft is clearly monopolistic and using this power, has hurt 
competing businesses and consumers. Including Internet Explorer in 
its Operating System, Windows, Microsoft damaged Netscape and it 
intended to damage Netscape. Internet Explorer is application 
software, not operating system software. Microsoft has done this 
with quite a few programs and has, as a result, harmed the software 
companies with which it competes. This is unfair business practice 
and must be stopped. Your settlement won't stop this behavior.
    Consumers have been hurt because companies that would offer 
better products, won't do so if a similar product is offered by 
Microsoft in Windows.
    When Bill Gates says he wants to compete and add value to his 
Windows operating system, what he is really saying and what he 
really means is ``Microsoft wants to restrict to market by 
driving competing firms out of business, thereby driving the price 
of Microsoft software up or at least not reducing the inflated price 
of the Windows system.''
    The Windows XP operating system is the latest attempt to gain 
market share and restrict competition. The use of the Passport 
system and other tracking software invades the privacy of consumers 
and allows Microsoft to monitor the habits of consumers so that 
Microsoft can sell more products and direct consumers to Microsoft 
``partners'' at the expense of other companies. 
Microsoft's restriction of the opening interface screen is an 
example of this behavior.
    Microsoft should be fined, prohibited from adding products like 
Internet Explorer to the operating system and Microsoft should be 
broken up into 2 companies--an operating system software 
company and an application software company. Anything less will 
allow Microsoft to dominate and restrict the software and hardware 
market to the point where development and innovation will be slowed 
down and may be even stopped. This is not in the interest of the 
computer industry or the computing public. This will only serve 
Microsoft's interest of complete domination of the computer and 
entertainment marketplace.
    Sincerely, Richard Farnham



MTC-00026382

From: Juan C Read
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/26/02 7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs of The Justice Department:
    I would like to add my support for the Microsoft company fight 
against those who are trying to drag Microsoft down. I have used 
Microsoft products for years and, as a senior, have found them to be 
the best. If Microsoft's competitors had been as diligent as 
Microsoft has been in trying to help the consumer, with good 
products, I feel they would not have to go crying to the government 
to be bailed out. If a company puts out a good product and gives 
real consumer service then those companies would not have to worry 
about competitors.
    Please, accept the Microsoft settlement, and stop further 
litigation. That useless waste of the courtroom money could be put 
to a much better use elsewhere.
    Thank you for reading this E-mail --- I?m a strong user and 
supporter of Microsoft products and private enterprise.
    Juan C. Read



MTC-00026383

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    I am offering my opinion to the Justice Department to counter 
the self-serving and punitive lobbying effort of Microsoft's 
competitors. Current law (known as the Tunney Act) allows public 
comment on the proposed settlement up until January 28th. The U.S. 
District Court will then decide whether the settlement is in the 
``public interest.'' I am sending my strong message to the 
Justice Department that consumer interests have been well served, 
and the time to end this costly and damaging litigation has come.
    Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few 
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one 
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.



MTC-00026384

From: Diane Engles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:49pm
Subject: Comment on Proposed Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed settlement 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I am a software 
developer with over 17 years of industry experience. Over these 
years I have watched my choices of software development platforms 
and products decline in number and in quality, due almost entirely 
to the monopolistic practices of the Microsoft Corporation.
    I watch daily and suffer myself as the poor quality of 
Micosoft's products cause American Industry to lose significant 
productivity due to system hangups virus infections. The current 
security flaws revealed in Windows XP are another example of a 
corporation who produces low quality products because there is no 
real competition. More secure and robust software exists today, but 
there is no real marketplace due to Microsoft's years of 
monopolistic practices.
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement will do little to 
effectively curb
    Microsoft and allow a true marketplace and real innovation to 
develop. I fully support the Kegel letter's (http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html) proposed remedies to effectively remedy 
Microsoft's years of illegal monopolistic control of the marketplace 
and the resulting stifling of true innovation. I will mention two of 
them briefly here:
    1) Microsoft's APIs, file formats, and protocols. The complete 
documentation for these must be made public. Any future changes must 
also be made public in a timely manner. This should allow other 
companies to produce products that can compete with Microsoft's 
products by removing a major barrier to entry, namely that no 
company can afford to convert all of its existing documents into a 
new format in order to take advantage of a non-Microsoft office 
suite or other applications.
    2) Microsoft's business practices. Microsoft must not be allowed 
to enter into deals with OEMs, ISPs, or other businesses that would 
create disincentives or prohibit those companies from offering non-
Microsoft products or services to their customers. Since the vast 
majority of the desktop computing world currently uses Microsoft 
products, OEMs, ISPs, and others must be able to offer those 
products to consumers. To allow Microsoft to continue to take 
advantage of that situation by prohibiting those companies from 
offering alternatives, either by outright prohibition, or by 
economic disincentive, is to allow Microsoft to continue to hold the 
industry hostage.
    Sincerely,
    Diane F. Engles



MTC-00026385

From: Jim Day
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an MSN user for years I would like to make the following 
comments regarding the Settlement. I've had numerous opportunities 
to subscribe to AOl and other internet providers. My choice has been 
MSN because I belive I get more value from remaining with the 
Windows environment. Before retiring I worked on many Large 
mainframes, midsize and small systems utilizing proprietary 
operating systems (IBM, Honeywell, Burroughs, Tandem, H.P.). I was 
aware of the costs associated with obtaining and utilizing the 
associated software and when Windows came along I felt like for the 
first time I obtained great flexibility at a minimum cost.
    If I could purchase a better operating system at a lower cost I 
would do it. If

[[Page 27799]]

someone can come up with a greater value I will purchase it. I 
believe that Microsoft so far has the best operating system at the 
lowest cost to me.
    I hope the settlement is concluded as soon as possible. Those 
seeking monetary rewards in hope of enrichment would be better off 
utilizing their time and money creating a better and cheeper 
operating system for all users.
    Hopeful user,
    James M. Day
    4535 Motorway Dr.
    Waterford, Mi. 48328



MTC-00026386

From: Scott Blomquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having been an avid complainer about Microsoft in the not so 
distant past, I have begun to truly value the amazing innovation 
that Microsoft has been bringing to the world for more than 25 
years. The currently proposed Final Judgment seems to strike a fair 
and reasonable balance between allowing Microsoft to continue to 
drive innovation, and giving its competitors a fair shake at similar 
innovation on existing and future Microsoft platforms. Under the 
proposed Final Judgment, consumers will continue to benefit from the 
great advances by all of the brilliant minds in the software 
industry. I strongly support the adoption of the proposed Final 
Judgment in its current form.



MTC-00026387

From: Linda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:52pm
Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft
    To Whom It May Concern:
    This email responds to the request for public comments by the 
Court hearing the case of the US versus Microsoft as part of the 
penalty phase of that litigation.
    Two factors ensure 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, that 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 US 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 ensure 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 ensure the long-term 
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,
    Linda Nusser
    [email protected]
    Trinidad, CO



MTC-00026388

From: Katrina Illari
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:55pm
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft settlement
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    I am a concerned computer programmer and user. I use Microsoft 
Windows as well as Linux at home. For the past few years I have been 
disgusted to see the increasing number of anticompetitive actions 
that Microsoft has been able to get away with. The court case seemed 
to provide a possibility for restoring a competitive market in the 
computer software business. Microsoft was convicted with 
anticompetitive behavior. However, the settlement that was agreed 
upon does not seem to be in the best interests of the consumers.
    Some points of concern are:
    1) the punishment if further anticompetitive actions are taken 
by Microsoft. That is that 2 years will be added to the period that 
they are to be closely watched. I did not see any actual enforcement 
of the restrictions placed on Microsoft. Just that a board of people 
would be assigned to watch if they break any of the restrictions and 
if so, then they will be restricted for another 2 years. Does this 
provide an automatic solution to any court case filed against 
Microsoft in the next 5 years? That is will the solution will be 
that the restrictions will just be extended for another 2 years? 
This almost seems to be in Microsoft's favor... No enforcement and 
if they break the rules then the rules will be imposed (with out 
enforcement) for another two years.
    2) The security exemption: Will this provide a hole for 
Microsoft? For example, will Microsoft just add access control to 
many of its API and then not publish them, using the security 
exemption as cover?
    3) Will Microsoft simply patent a lot of its interfaces/
protocols and then charge companies licensing fees in order to get 
the information about the API/protocol. I do not see anything in 
this settlement that would stop them from doing so. As evidence, 
they already patented the next version of the SMB protocol. This is 
a protocol which allows you to share drives/files between computers. 
SAMBA, a popular file server software uses this protocol to share 
drives between Unix and Windows machines. Once Windows only supports 
the new protocol, it will once again be impossible to share drives 
between Windows and Unix systems. As I see it this is simply an 
extension to the older protocol not something that it would be 
strategic to have a patent on except if one wanted to eliminate the 
ability for a Unix machine to share drives with a Windows machine. 
Surely this is an anticompetitive action against SAMBA.
    4) The fact that Microsoft is allowed to include non operating 
system applications as part of the operating system is not 
beneficial to consumers. This gives an advantage to Microsoft in 
marketing of the applications that they include in the operating 
system. They have a strangle hold on the browser market because of 
this and in Windows XP, they are trying this with multimedia 
applications.
    Katrina Illari
    521 Del Medio Ave #201
    Mountain View, CA 94040



MTC-00026389

From: john oakes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026389--0001

60 Sterling Street
Beacon, NY 12508
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: My business partner Jack Harrison and I are 
delighted to see a settlement between Microsoft and the Department 
of Justice. This settlement is in the best interest of free 
enterprise and competition.
    The attack on Microsoft should never have happened. It 
demonstrates why the government should keep its hands out of the 
affairs of free enterprise. It has been another

[[Page 27800]]

huge waste of taxpayers'' money and government and private 
resources. As business partners in the direct-mail industry, we know 
that waste must be minimized; budgeting, purchasing, sales, all 
contribute to business growth and weigh heavily on success or 
failure.
    Resolving to give Microsoft its business back will end the three 
years of government intervention into Microsoft. This has disrupted 
the computer and technical industries, where recession and the loss 
of business have been of paramount concern. Microsoft has continued 
in its role as the industry leader in providing innovative software 
(the public and business world have been shouting this for years). 
The new obligations Microsoft has agreed to will drive competition 
and collaboration among industries to develop better and more 
innovative products for consumers, while also providing computer 
users software options and computer configurations never before 
seen.
    The Department of Justice is at a historical moment in time: 
preventing more waste while also encouraging economic recovery. The 
achievement of this will occur when the government precludes any 
further litigation against Microsoft and accepts these very fair 
settlement terms.
    Sincerely,
    John Oakes



MTC-00026390

From: Brandon A. Seltenrich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft should be 
allowed to go through. Microsoft's competitors, mainly led by Sun, 
Oracle and AOL Time-Warner cloaking themselves behind various so-
called non-profit groups, are in fact manipulating the American 
justice system for their own business desires. These companies were 
not able to compete against Microsoft in the business arena, so they 
instead hope to punish them into submission with our legal system.
    The suits against Microsoft are not intended to protect and 
defend the average American; instead, they are designed to make 
wealthy a few self-interested businesses.
    -B



MTC-00026391

From: addison pace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Further litigation would be a shameless waste. Those filing 
against Microsoft are getting their'' pound of flesh''. 
Enough!
    Addison Pace



MTC-00026392

From: Chris Dobbins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello my name is Chris Dobbins, I'm a 17 year old living in the 
California Bay Area. I'm mailing you my thoughts on the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement.
    In my view the proposed settlement is much too weak to do any 
good against the illegal monopoly that is Microsoft. What is needed 
is a strong punishment that will enable competition to flourish 
immediately, creating much needed diversity in the operating system 
market. Anything else would be down right dangerous.
    Diversity is needed to protect the very infrastructure of the 
internet and computers in general. At this moment thousands of kids 
younger then me have the ability to write a simple viral program 
that can create havoc on the internet, spreading through well know 
holes in Microsoft Outlook and other Microsoft programs which are 
bundled with the OS. During the many e-mail virus attacks last year 
I had little to worry about because I use a Macintosh. My computer 
cannot run programs written for Windows. There are very few viruses 
for the Mac OS because the relatively low market share means that 
the cracker will not receive the attention they would get from 
creating a Windows virus and spreading it world wide.
    If the Operating System market were more competitive then 
computers in general would be safer. Added diversity would not get 
in the way of communication either. Even though my computer is fully 
able to network with and talk to a computer running Windows, the 
differences between the two operating systems mean that it is much 
harder to infect both computers with the same program.
    Microsoft says they are devoted to security, but only now that 
they are experiencing negative press because of the large amount of 
security holes in their software. I say it's about time we stopped 
trusting them with the security of computers everywhere. The 
Department of Justice has the means to impose strict sanctions and 
punishments on Microsoft, I say use that power to the fullest, 
before it's too late.
    Thank you for taking my views into consideration,
    Chris Dobbins



MTC-00026393

From: Patrick Mahaney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:57pm
Subject: Comments
    To Whom it may concern;
    I am a college student studying in the field of Computer 
Information Systems. The outcome of this settlement will most likely 
affect the industry I am headed into.
    I'd like to express my feelings on a few of the shortcomings of 
the proposed settlement.
    Firstly, the definitions of ``Middleware'' products 
are not very clear. From what I understand, there are a lot of 
loopholes in the section that would allow Microsoft to continue 
exercising the same business practices in the past. To be more 
specific, Microsoft could easily change a version number and the 
software would no longer be considered ``Middleware'' by 
the DOJ.
    Secondly, another understanding that I have is that a lot of the 
new regulations and demands do not include Microsoft Windows XP. If 
this isn't included in the settlement, I don't see how beneficial it 
would be towards prohibiting antitrust practices.
    I would like to see an outcome that will make a difference. Not 
one that will just temporarily prevent a monopoly.
    Thank you for your time.
    -Patrick Mahaney



MTC-00026394

From: John Carey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:57pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft antitrust settlement
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    I am writing to comment on the Microsoft antitrust case 
settlement proposed by the U.S. Department of Justice and others. 
Both as a consumer and as a software engineer, it is my view that 
this settlement will fail to protect the public interest from 
Microsoft's ongoing abuse of monopoly power.
    First, let me introduce myself. My name is John Corning Carey. I 
am a U.S. citizen and resident of Mountain View, California. I have 
used computers since grade school. My training is in mathematics, 
but after completing my PhD analytic number theory I entered the 
workforce as a software engineer. Professionally, I have developed 
software for Microsoft Windows, Unix, and Linux operating systems. 
At home I use both Microsoft Windows 98 and Linux 2.4 for a variety 
of tasks. Let me be the first to say that no operating system is 
perfect. Each has its strengths and its weaknesses. But can I choose 
the one that is best for the task? Sometimes I can, but all too 
often the answer is no, because Microsoft maintains its monopoly.
    At work, I have been frustrated by Microsoft's poor 
documentation, especially for error messages and database connection 
APIs. Also, Microsoft keeps changing its APIs, rather than fixing 
them, making it difficult to keep up. My friends tell me about how 
they can't inter-operate with Microsoft products because the 
security protocols are secret. And when we consider switching away 
from Microsoft? The answer is always: no, we can't, because 
everyone's using Microsoft, and even if they aren't, they soon they 
will be. And then there are the system crashes...
    At home I suffer the same crashes, and much of the software I 
want to run is available only for Microsoft Windows. What will I do 
when Windows 98 is no longer supported, and I am forced to use 
Windows XP? I will have to rent my software, despite the trouble and 
expense that entails.
    So I have a strong interest in aggressive competition in the 
operating system market. But will the proposed settlement restore 
competition? I think not, because it has weak enforcement 
provisions, includes many loopholes, and tends to exclude small/free 
developers. For example, Microsoft may be required to disclose APIs, 
but only to businesses that can afford its third-party tests and 
perhaps non-disclosure agreements. What about open-source 
developers? And if Microsoft claims that it must keep secret its 
file formats or file-sharing protocols out of security concerns, 
will we have to return to court to decide if it is within the law? 
That would take too long, and defeat one purpose of a 
settlement--to escape court. In my view,

[[Page 27801]]

some expedited enforcement and legal review provisions are required. 
Past experience indicates that there is no ``good faith'' 
when it comes to Microsoft, and software's complexity makes it hard 
to pre-script legal solutions.
    And finally, what is to stop Microsoft from maintaining its 
monopoly through patented protocols and formats? They can be 
disclosed to the world, but nobody else can use them--unless 
they please Microsoft. Recently I heard that Microsoft has patented 
a revised version of SMB file sharing. That is death to open-source 
file servers.
    In closing, let me say that I have benefited from some of 
Microsoft's software, and a competitive Microsoft could be a great 
help to the software industry. But a Microsoft that can do as it 
pleases is a great threat.
    I was hoping that this case would lead to some real competition, 
and a flowering of alternatives. But this settlement seems to give 
in to Microsoft just when the government has won its case. Please 
consider more effective sanctions and enforcement mechanisms.
    Sincerely,
    John Corning Carey
    2280 Latham St, Apt 6
    Mountain View, CA 94040
    (650)988-1827



MTC-00026395

From: Mike(038)barbara Gibbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:59pm
Michael Gibbs
P.O. Box 601
Myrtle Point, OR 97458-0601
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The judge should approve the settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust case. It would be the best thing that could happen for 
America to end this court action. It is time to take the bull by the 
horns and throw it out of the ring. The lawsuit should not have been 
brought by the Justice Department and the eighteen states. Remember, 
thirty-two states would not join it three years ago when all they 
had to do was sign on. Now, though, the settlement provides a way to 
end the lawsuit that everyone should be able to live with. After 
all, the judge appointed a mediator who negotiated with the parties 
for three months to reach an agreement that everyone could live 
with, everyone except nine states with less successful competitors 
to Microsoft who think they would o better if Microsoft was forcibly 
split into pieces. Microsoft should be allowed to get back to the 
good work they have always done. They are no fly-by-night instant 
wonder without morals. They have always kept honest books and 
maintained their legal rights, as they expected others to do. Under 
the settlement, Microsoft will allowed to go back to work in return 
for giving up its legal rights to some of its software and business 
practices. Microsoft will give away to other companies its internal 
interface code for its various Windows programs, and the protocols 
that allow its server computers to work with other computers. When a 
company needs to use Microsoft's other software code, Microsoft has 
given up its right to say no. Instead Microsoft will license its 
codes to any company on reasonable, non-discriminatory terms. So, 
Microsoft will really be surrendering its legal rights to other 
companies, even those that it would not want to help if it had a 
choice. This will be good for the computer industry as a whole. It 
is disturbing, though, to see a great, honest, company like 
Microsoft forced to give up its legal rights for no good reason. If 
Microsoft is not safe, who is?
    Your support for the settlement is crucial to letting Microsoft 
and the American computer industry get back to work. Thank you for 
your consideration and support.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Gibbs



MTC-00026396

From: karl sebastian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I write as a former user of Microsoft software products, and now 
a user of Apple hardware and software, to protest the apparent lack 
of will on the part of the American legal system to apply its laws 
equally and in fair measure to its citizens.
    This is a situation reached because of my perceptions of 
Microsoft as a major obstacle to competitive software innovation, 
through improper use of its financial strength, and now seemingly to 
be excused by the American legal system of any significant penalty 
although found guilty of these practices by that same legal system. 
Also I write because of my perception of Microsoft as being less of 
an innovator and more of an imitator. In the process providing 
software systems that have had defects that have resulted in 
enormous costs to business worldwide, both through vulnerability to 
viruses and through faulty operation, and because of the harmful 
effects they have had on true innovation.
    In fact producing products with so many defects that, if 
experienced in similar measure in any other field of production 
,would have long ago resulted in costly litigation by dissatisfied 
consumers. The other competitive software operating system, Apple, 
while certainly not a perfect example, would seem to offer some 
pointers as to a preferred way of doing business in the field of 
computer operating systems, with their inclination to a more co-
operative approach to other software producers, even to the extent 
of ensuring great compatibility with the Microsoft software through 
the proper use of generally accepted codes, such as pertain to the 
Internet. A field where once more Microsoft have a dubious record.
    As a resident of Australia, and an admirer of much that is 
American, the present attitudes and actions of the Microsoft 
corporation reflect in the microcosm much that is deplored in the 
macrocosm that is called the United States of America, and if 
justice is not seen to be done will only be harmful to your 
reputation in the longer term.
    A severe and applied penalty to this arrogant corporation is 
long overdue and thoroughly deserved.
    Yours sincerely,
    Karl Sebastian.
    [email protected]



MTC-00026397

From: Brad Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hash: SHA1
    26 Jan 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Ms Hesse
    I am taking the opportunity to comment on the proposed 
settlement between the federal U.S. government and Microsoft. I have 
following this case closely since it's inception. I will first 
provide a brief background of myself and then provide some 
commentary on the settlement.
    I have been a user of microcomputers, what used to be known as 
IBM clones, since the early 1980s. Before that I used a variety of 
mainframe and minicomputers. I have been a software developer since 
1978 writing database software and analytical software to help me in 
my profession as a quantitative ecologist. Much of this software 
development occurred on clones of IBM PCs starting in the mid-1980s. 
I currently work for the federal government as a manager leading a 
small software development team. These comments reflect my personal 
opinions and experiences. I will be 50 in October 2002.
    The proposed settlement does not go far enough in providing 
suitable remedies. What are needed now in the market place are real 
and viable alternatives to products and solutions offered by 
Microsoft. This settlement fails, in my opinion, to create a climate 
that allows for viable products to emerge and flourish. Microsoft 
through legal and illegal practices has created a multi-faceted 
monopoly that covers operating systems, office productivity suites 
(MS Office), and access to the internet through MS Internet 
Explorer.
    Viable competition existed at one time across this spectrum of 
products. One could argue that in many cases, the alternative 
technology was superior in design and/or implementation. Most 
alternatives have failed or been marginalized reducing choice to 
consumers and effectively eliminating competition.
    I recommend that the proposal by the dissenting States be used 
as the starting point as minimum remedies. Negotiations between the 
federal government and the participating States can be used to set 
additional penalties and remedies.
    Thank you,
    Bradley G. Smith
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026399

From: Del Teel
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 27802]]

Date: 1/26/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft settlement falls FAR SHORT of punishment 
consistent with their CRIME.
    THEY ARE GUILTY. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DEMAND 
JUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW!!!!!!!!!
    Del Teel
    8125 Bush Mill Ln.
    Charlotte, NC 28270
    800 900 7056



MTC-00026400

From: Laurence Schorsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata B. Hesse,
    I have signed and endorsed the open letter of Dan Kegel. The 
Proposed Final Judgement will allow many of Microsoft's 
anticompetitive practices to continue. Their lack of good faith has 
been demonstrated enough, even after the PFJ was set out. 
Microsoft's ruthless and predatory practices are hurting the rest of 
the computer/software industry, and a toothless final judegment is 
not in the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Laurence Schorsch
    Graduate Student, Computer Science
    University of Chicago



MTC-00026401

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of 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 Campbell
    523 Martin Neese Rd
    Swansea, SC 29160



MTC-00026402

From: Danae Cann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    file:///C/win/temp/tmp.
    The proposed settlement is just not tough enough! It cannot be 
effective to the degree necessary for a company like Microsoft.



MTC-00026403

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
1345 17th Street SE, Apt. B
Auburn, WA 98002
January 26, 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 Microsoft settlement agreement. The terms 
of the agreement are reasonable, and this case should be finalized 
for once and for all.
    By entering into this agreement, Microsoft has essentially 
agreed to assist its competitors in their quest to compete at the 
same level as Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed to disclose portions 
of its code to the other software companies. They have also agreed 
to design future editions of Windows in such a way that it will be 
easier to remove features of Windows and replace those features with 
software designed by Microsoft's competitors. I am satisfied that 
these types of concessions will achieve the underlying goal of 
ensuring fair competition is restored.
    I feel that The Department of Justice has acted prudently in 
deciding to settle this case.
    The Microsoft Corporation has made extraordinary achievements 
since it's inception, helping to provide the world with a tool 
second to none and should not be further penalized for their 
achievements. Further, I speak from a computer owner's standpoint 
and not as a stock holder.
    Sincerely,
    /s/John M Howe
    John M Howe
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026404

From: Joel C. Sercel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    As a concerned citizen and business owner I am sending you this 
correspondence to register my concerns regarding the pending 
Microsoft Settlement. I urge the court to consider the strongest 
possible settlement against Microsoft which does not damage U.S. 
industrial competitiveness in global markets.
    Press reports of related Microsoft offers to donate software and 
hardware to schools as part of a settlement offer are particularly 
concerning to me as such a move would:
    1) not alleviate the financial and market share related pain 
suffered by Microsoft's victims,
    2) not cost Microsoft nearly what Microsoft claims it would 
cost, and
    3) would tend to extend Microsoft's monopoly into yet another 
market.
    Any settlement which does not provide some remedy to alleviate 
market share and financial loss for Netscape and Apple computer is 
of particularly concern as those two companies, both of which are 
widely recognized as far more innovative than Microsoft, have been 
particularly hurt by unfair Microsoft practices. Please ensure that 
any financial remedies levied on Microsoft are used in such a way as 
to ensure the increase in Netscape and Apple market shares and the 
market shares of the other companies hurt my Microsoft practices.
    Sincerely
    Joel Sercel



MTC-00026405

From: J. Scott Kasten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
FROM:
Scott Kasten
2120 Manor Dr. Apt 116
Lexington, KY 40502
    To the Honorable Court:
    As a citizen of the United States and 15 year veteran of the 
high-tech industry it is both my right, and duty to file comments 
with the court in the case of U.S. vs Microsoft anti-trust action as 
described under the provisions of the Tunney Act. I have chosen to 
write the court because activities of the Microsoft Monopoly have so 
seriously harmed my industry, that not only have they harmed the end 
consumer, but they have seriously impaired my ability to work in 
this industry.
    I will begin with a brief summary of my main points before 
expounding upon them in greater detail with specific facts. 
Basically, the proposed settlement is unacceptable when viewed in 
the interest of the public and industry for the following reasons:
    [1] The settlement was not written with a proper perspective of 
the industry as a whole in mind.
    [2] The way the settlement is written, it only provides remedy 
in regards to the current Microsoft platform. Microsoft is already 
putting their exit strategy to a new platform in place which will 
have the effect of making the settlement obsolete before it even 
goes into effect.
    [3] There are language inaccuracies that leave the efficacy of 
the settlement in doubt.
    [4] The settlement has very few provisions to remedy Microsoft's 
most publicly damaging weapon which is their End User License 
Agreement (hereafter known as the EULA).
    Now I will explore each item in greater depth so the court can 
better understand what actions need to be taken to fix the proposed 
remedy.
    [1] I will start with a brief industry perspective since that 
forms the root of objections 2 through 4.
    In the industry, it has been recognized that operating systems 
in general have moved

[[Page 27803]]

from the status of a high-end, high-value product offering to a mere 
commodity in the same fashion as the use of electricity or 
telephones did in the early part of the 20th century, or even the 
computer hardware itself in the latter part of the 20th century. 
There has not been anything truly new or totally innovative in 
operating system technology in about the last 15 years or so. 
Indeed, modern operating systems are based on ideas spawned in 
universities over 30 years ago, most of which was perfected at least 
20 years ago.
    Most operating system vendors in the industry have already 
recognized this and adapted their business models to account for 
that. Although one would think of IBM, Sun Microsystems, HP, and 
Silicon Graphics Inc. (now known simply as SGI), as operating system 
vendors, that view would be somewhat incorrect. Their business 
models evolved to become hardware and consulting/service vendors 
that sell packages. Each workstation purchased from SGI comes with 
an entitlement to run certain releases of SGI's IRIX operating 
system based on its serial number; operating system upgrades are a 
rather miniscule portion of their revenue stream. They are even 
offering a Free operating system (Linux) on some of their offerings. 
Sun Microsystems gives their operating system away free of charge 
for personal or non-commercial use, and even makes the source code 
available without charge to developers that need to inspect it to 
improve their software offerings that run on Solaris.
    Both HP and IBM, most notably IBM as of late, have been making 
steps to move away from their proprietary operating system offerings 
to Open Source alternatives such as Linux and various flavors of 
BSD; both companies have moved to the sale of hardware or software 
applications and consulting services maintain the cash volume of 
their revenue streams. And of course, with the decline in market 
value of proprietary operating systems, we have seen the rise in 
interest and importance of Open Source, or Free operating systems 
such as Linux, and BSD to take the place of the proprietary ones.
    Companies that have failed to recognize this have perished. 
Witness the dismantling of Digital Equipment Corporation by Compaq, 
a commodity equipment and services vendor, The acquisition of Santa 
Cruz Operation (SCO Unix) by Caldera, a company that is known as a 
Linux specialist. Novell nearly perished trying to maintain their 
business model around Netware, but finally appears to have turned 
things around when they refocused on applications and services the 
past couple of years.
    The real focus in the computer industry is not on operating 
systems or platforms so much as it is in cross-platform 
applications, hardware support, and user interfacing. Basically, 
John Doe with a new digital camera wants to snap some pictures, 
retouch them on the computer, and make some nice glossy prints for 
the relatives. He doesn't even want to know anything about the 
operating system his computer runs, he wants the camera to function 
with his IBM PC running a PC operating system as well as it does 
with his friend's Macintosh running MacOS.
    In the history of this industry, Microsoft is truly unique. They 
have maintained and increased their market share and position not 
through real product innovation, but through predatory practices 
that resulted in them becoming a monopoly. The maintenance of that 
monopoly is what has allowed them to keep an artificial floor on the 
value of the operating system products they offer. Notice the use of 
the term value here instead of price. Price is what a consumer pays, 
value is a reflection of the consumer's need. Naturally, the need 
affects the price one is willing to pay, so there is an 
interrelationship at work that implies the consumer is paying too 
much, which I'll explore further in item 4.
    [2] Although Microsoft has managed to keep an artificial floor 
on the value of their operating system products through monopolistic 
practices, even they realized that the inevitable pressures to 
marginalize the operating system would become too great for even 
them to bear. Thus they planned its obsolescence. The new target 
development platform of choice is going to be the .NET 
infrastructure. Ancient PC's had a BIOS containing the BASIC 
programming language/operating system that was permanently embedded 
in their ROM memory. As full fledged disk based operating systems 
came about, they marginalized the BIOS. None of the BIOS products 
these days has a built in programming language. It's only roll is to 
pull the disk based operating system in off disk now. It has no real 
apparent value to the end user of the system that rarely even 
notices the brief BIOS messages that flash by as the system boots 
up. No one programs to that interface anymore. Microsoft is trying 
to do the same thing to their own Windows operating system and 
replace it with .NET. Windows will become little more than a fancy 
video display driver. No one will program to it anymore. The .NET 
infrastructure will be the actual target for most future software 
development.
    This is also where I begin to find specific faults in the 
settlement as written. In section III. Prohibited Conduct, please 
reference paragraph D. The terse form of which basically says, 
``Microsoft must publish in full their programming APIs for the 
Windows operating system.'' The .NET framework is not 
specifically mentioned anywhere in the document, but presumably fits 
in under the definition of ``Middleware'' as described in 
sections VI.--J and VI.--K. There is no section or 
language which indicates that they must fully disclose the 
middleware APIs. This is a fatal flaw as Microsoft has publicly 
acknowledged the corporate strategy shift from software publication 
on the Windows operating system to the .NET infrastructure running 
on top of it. Thus they can repeat the vendor lockout cycle again on 
a ``whole new'' platform, unhindered by the terms of this 
settlement.
    Further, section III.-J, paragraphs 1 and 2 cause me grave 
concern, particularly in light of the .NET strategy. Section J in 
summary provides government granted exclusions. Paragraph 1 
basically states that Microsoft may keep any programming APIs, 
methodologies, and information about network protocol layers that 
relate to anti-virus protection, authentication, or encryption 
secret. Paragraph 2 allows Microsoft carte blanch to determine to 
whom they wish to share that information for purposes of 
interfacing. This goes against what is generally accepted as 
``best practices'' in the industry.
    It is accepted practice that network protocols and interfacing 
standards are proposed and peer reviewed in standards committees 
such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) or the World Wide 
Web Consortium (W3C) to provide for better design, functionality, 
robustness, and security. Items related to authentication, and 
encryption in particular need the critical attention of peer review 
due both to the complexity of such systems, and the importance of 
the data protected by such systems. It is also accepted practice 
that the architecture is open so that anyone may produce their own 
implementation of the standard so that products from different 
vendors can interoperate freely. After all, that is the end goal, to 
connect one user with another.
    Microsoft has in the past proven their incompetence in the 
implementation of cryptographic systems and security in general. 
Witness the introduction of L0pht Crack (pronounced 
``loft'') which could pull encrypted passwords from the 
Windows NT registry thanks to its flawed cryptographic 
implementation. The numerous viruses such as Sircam, Love Letter, 
Nimbda, etc. that have exploited weaknesses in Microsoft's security 
interfaces. My point here is not to bring new evidence to the court, 
but more to make the point that sensitive systems related to 
security, authentication, and encryption need to be designed under 
the intelligence of multiple parties. Hence the peer review and 
refereeing process that is so widely used in the industry. It also 
helps prevent one party from subverting the standards for their own 
ends.
    Micrsoft intends for the .NET platform to help provide a new 
infrastructure for information storage, security, and 
identification/authentication, that will help drive a future 
Internet based economy. With the help of standards committees, 
implementations from multiple vendors, and so forth, this could be a 
good thing for society. However, it is far from the public's best 
interest for one company to own the whole thing. If there's only one 
implementation, then any security flaws discovered, and experience 
shows there will be many, can bring down everything. Furthermore, 
independent companies need to have access to interfacing standards 
for something as important as this to provide consumers choice in 
the products and services space connected with this platform.
    [3] I have already voiced some concern over where .NET fits into 
the settlement agreement. However, there are other specific 
inaccuracies in language and specificity that could render the 
agreement unenforceable.
    In this matter, I would like to refer the court to a very 
thorough analysis compiled by one Dan Kegel and other parties 
available on the web here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Mr. Kegel has also submitted, or is in the process of 
submitting, this document to the

[[Page 27804]]

court for inspection as part of an open letter with many co-signers 
as his contribution under the Tunney Act. I will not waste the 
court's time re-iterating what he has already so carefully 
documented except to state that I AGREE IN FULL with the assessment 
provided in that document.
    [4] Towards the end, of the document, Mr. Kegel begins to 
address some issues regarding the EULA agreements that Microsoft 
imposes on their product users. The settlement makes no requirements 
for change to potentially predatory practices in Microsoft's EULAs. 
Unfortunately, that is one of Miscrosoft's tools for manipulating 
and harming the consumer, and other parts of the industry.
    Mr. Kegel points out that the Windows Media Encoder EULA 
prohibits distribution of certain redistributable components when 
accompanied with application components that were licensed under a 
Free or Open Source license. And that the Microsoft Platform SDK and 
Visual C++ development environment have in their EULA a clause that 
can make it illegal for you to distribute and run your own created 
application on a Windows compatible platform such as a Windows 
emulator on a Sun, SGI, or Macintosh computer, or a PC running Wine, 
IBM OS/2, or Trumpet Petros, all of which are Windows alternatives. 
He also points out that some Microsoft utilities such as NewsAlert 
state in the EULA that they are forbidden to be run on non-Microsoft 
operating systems.
    To those examples, I wish to add a few more.
    Microsoft uses the EULA to tie their Windows operating system to 
the PC on which it was purchased. This means that when a user 
trashes a PC, he cannot use the same copy of Windows on the new PC, 
but must instead purchase a new and redundant copy of Windows to be 
fully in compliance with the licensing agreement. As PC technology 
dates quickly, users who must update frequently are legally bound to 
purchase redundant copies of an operating system that they already 
have, thus helping Microsoft to maintain its revenue stream on what 
should have already been a commodity item. In the present, Microsoft 
with the advent of Windows XP has already implemented software EULA 
enforcement that prevents users from upgrading too many components 
of their system before they have to go back to Microsoft and re-
license the same operating system install on the same PC.
    Indeed, Microsoft used to offer a refund for unwanted copies of 
their Windows software product with this language in the EULA, 
``If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, PC 
manufacturer and Microsoft are unwilling to license the software 
product to you. In such an event ... you should promptly contact PC 
manufacturer for instructions on a return of the unused product(s) 
for a refund. ``However, after an unsuccessful campaign on by 
many users to claim such refunds on an organized ``Windows 
Refund Day'' on Feb 15th, 1999, people discovered that 
Microsoft and its vendors had no intentions of honoring that clause 
and had no effective refund channel in place., and it appears to 
have since been removed from the licensing agreement.
    Microsoft attempts to limit the constitutionally provided right 
to free speech in the EULA contained with the Microsoft FrontPage 
2002 product for web publishing. It sates, ``You may not use 
the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, 
MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services, infringe any 
intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any 
state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred or 
pornography.'' So if I publish an article on the web using MS 
FrontPage such as a product performance benchmark that Microsoft 
finds unfavorable, have I indeed violated the EULA?
    Whether or not these agreements are actually enforceable if a 
matter of legal opinion that I am not qualified to evaluate. 
However, what is clear is that Microsoft has cleverly left itself 
some channels through which it can attempt to tie individuals or 
businesses up in court when it finds their actions displeasurable. 
The potential legal costs alone have a chilling an dampening effect 
in the industry.
    In closing, I beg the court to find the proposed settlement as 
lacking in enforceability and effective remedy. This settlement 
needs to be rejected and reworked keeping the points that I have 
outlined above in mind. Thank you for your time and consideration in 
this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Scott Kasten



MTC-00026406

From: Grayshadow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:10pm Subject'' Microsoft
Robert Izzo
50 Kipp Lane, Lot 44
Hudson, NY 12534
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The stilt against Microsoft should never have been happened in 
the first plac?? therefore I feel that the settlement they have made 
with the Department of Justice should stand the way it is and all 
litigations need to come to a halt. t am now retire but in my spare 
time, l rebuild and upgrade computers and have always used Microsoft 
products. Microsoft is being harassed for bring the best at what 
they do. Bill Gates is an excellent businessman who built this 
company from the ground up. and now other companies want to take 
advantage of all his hard work.
    We have home computers that are easily used and understood 
because of Microsoft. They have changed the way the IT industry does 
business. Now the other companies are going to get the internal 
codes of Microsoft so that they can design their software to be 
compatible. I don't necessarily think this b a bad thing but the 
courts should not be able to tell them they have to do this.
    Even though I feel as though the suit should never have happened 
m the firs place, I think the settlement is better than continuing 
litigations, Enough damage h been done to the IT industry and the 
economy already. I hope the Department of Justice decides to rule in 
favor of the settlement so tiffs whole ordeal can be over.
    Sincerely.



MTC-00026407

From: Mike Doherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't like the terms of the Microsoft settlement. For one 
thing, a penalty to Microsoft that allows them to donate computers 
to schools is inherently wrong. This will undercut the competition 
even more.
    Mike Doherty
    Cleveland, OH
    Self



MTC-00026408

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:12pm
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,
    Michael Johnson
    45 Whitebush Way
    Astoria, OR 97103



MTC-00026409

From: Andrew Salamon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:16pm
Subject: MicrosoftSettlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    My name is Andrew Salamon, I live in La Mesa California and I am 
a citizen of the United States of America. I have been a 
professional computer programmer since 1995 and for the first five 
of those years I was writing what most people call ``mission 
critical'' software for very large organizations: financial, 
accounting and personnel applications. Eight months ago I left the 
financial industry and took the Chief Software Engineer position at 
Nisus Software Inc., whose main product is a Macintosh word 
processor called Nisus Writer.
    Nisus Software has been around for over fourteen years. I don't 
know too much about the company's history, but I do know that in the 
past they were much larger than they are

[[Page 27805]]

today. I can't honestly claim that their smaller size is entirely 
due to ``unfair competition'' from Microsoft, but that 
would certainly seem like a good bet.
    I would like to bring up one problem that falls within my area 
of expertise. Nisus Software gets a lot of complaints along the 
lines of: ``I need to send a file to a co-worker (or colleague, 
or friend), but they can'' t read it because they use MS 
Word!'' or ``Someone sent me this .doc (MS Word) file, and 
when I try to open it in Nisus Writer, it just looks like 
garbage!''. A fair number of these complaints end with, 
``Well, I'd love to use Nisus Writer but I can't because I need 
to work with people using MS Word.''
    Ever since I've started working for Nisus, one of my co-workers 
has been working on that problem. Specifically, there is a file 
format called RTF (Rich Text Format) that many different word 
processors can use. Unfortunately, RTF is not an open standard, it 
was created by Microsoft. The documentation is difficult to find and 
even harder to understand. What'' s more, it is a moving target 
and Microsoft's own products rarely adhere to the publicly available 
information. Documents saved as RTF files by Nisus Writer often show 
up as garbage text in MS Word, or sometimes even crash it, despite 
our best efforts to make the document adhere to the 
``published'' standard.
    Even if RTF were an open standard, however, it would not 
completely solve the problem of interoperability because it is an 
intermediate format that is not ``native'' to either Nisus 
Writer or MS Word (or many other other word processors). This means 
that there will always be a chance of losing data or formatting 
information when transferring files.
    I am not a lawyer but based on my reading of the currently 
proposed penalty in the Microsoft anti-trust case as well as the 
commentary of others (including the Electronic Frontier Foundation's 
legal staff) I would say that there will be no substantial change in 
the way Microsoft does business given the current settlement.
    Andrew M. Salamon
    Chief Software Engineer, Nisus Software, Inc.



MTC-00026410

From: Kurt Fleschner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I'm writing this e-mail to voice my opinion that the current 
settlement in the Microsoft trial is insufficient. It's been stated 
before and found that Microsoft is a monopoly, and that it has 
participated in unlawful use of that monopoly. I feel that the 
settlement with Microsoft does not significantly punish the company 
for its practices, nor keep the company from abusing it's position 
in the future. I hope the the courts will come to the same 
conclusion.
    Kurt Fleschner



MTC-00026411

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    henry robinson
    PO Box 808
    Newberry, SC 29108



MTC-00026412

From: Raphael Fleishman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have written earlier to express my concern that the current 
Microsoft settlement does little in the way of protecting 
competition, VAR, OEMs, and resellers from retaliatory actions by 
Microsoft in the event these groups choose to implement non-
Microsoft solutions.
    I would like to add that I strongly urge the DOJ to pursue 
further investigation and prosecution of the anticompetitive actions 
Microsoft used to leverage the web to further its monopoly in 
Windows operating systems.
    Much has been made of Microsoft's right to add features to 
Windows. It is important to note that the dominant markeshare of 
Internet Explorer came to pass, besides through the obvious 
distributional advantage, because Microsoft used the tactics of 
embrace and extend of the HTML standard in order to pollute standard 
HTML and make web pages in Internet Explorer render differently than 
web pages in Netscape. Instead of following the standards of the W3C 
body Microsoft made up its own.
    The network effect of Microsoft's Windows distributional 
monopoly took part in this because webmasters decided that rendering 
for Internet Explorer was more important and more stable, from a 
marketshare perspective, than rendering for Netscape. After all, 
only some Windows users had access to Netscape or the significant 
ability and know-how to install it, but all of them had Internet 
Explorer.
    As the proprietization increased and the market of Internet 
Explorer-enabled web pages increased so did its use. I don't use 
Internet Explorer as my primary browser, but if I go to certain web 
pages I'm forced to switch to Internet Explorer instead of using an 
alternative browser because these web pages have tags that tell me 
they were optimized for some other browser and won't render 
correctly in any other.
    It is significantly more difficult for competitors to follow the 
closed proprietary standards of web rendering specified by Internet 
Explorer than to follow those of the World Wide Web Consortium. It 
takes significantly more effort on the part of content providers and 
webmasters to provide two types of web pages, one for Microsoft's 
proprietary methods, and one for W3C-standarized ones. It's unfair 
that Microsoft could so easily use an existing monopoly to supplant 
competitors'' products and I fear that with 90% marketshare and 
the phenomena of institutional resistance to change, combined with a 
general lack of knowledge of real computing standards (vs. 
Microsoft's forced-upon-the-consumer proprietary ones), consumers 
will be artificially burdened in their attempts to adopt alternative 
communication-enabling products like browsers.
    It is important to watch the progress of Microsoft's Windows 
Media Player, a newly bundled product to allow the visualization of 
proprietized (non standard, incompatible with competitors) movie 
media files on client computers across the web, and to determine if 
the marketshare of exclusive Windows Media Player-compatible content 
is increasing significantly faster than that of competitors who do 
not bundle their product with their computers or struggle with 
decreased distributional advantages like Real Network's Real Player. 
The inability for consumers using alternative operating systems to 
browse web content is a significant deterrent to adoption of 
competitors'' Operating Systems and is consequently a clear 
example of Monopoly Maintenance.
    The greatest damage Microsoft caused to consumers is the result 
of the way in which Microsoft changed the web from a non-
proprietized platform- and browser- agnotistic information exchange 
system to a Microsoft-favored one. That's not only illegal in light 
of the Court's finding that Microsoft holds a monopoly in the 
product market to which Internet Explorer was tied, it's unethical, 
it's immoral, and it violates the rights of consumers to enabled 
alternative choices.
    I am concerned that as long as Microsoft can continue to 
leverage bundling with Windows Operating Systems in order to set 
proprietary standards of information exchange--be they text 
documents, movie files, sound files, or others--competitors are 
faced with an uphill battle to provide competing proprietary 
protocols or even to design products compatible with Microsoft's.
    With Best Regards,
    Raphael Fleishman
    Stanford University
    Beckman Center B403
    Stanford, CA, 94305-5307
    mailto:[email protected]
    650-723-4025
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,[email protected].



MTC-00026413

From: Larry Ross

[[Page 27806]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:22pm
Subject: Lawrence-Howard: Ross
Lawrence-Howard: Ross
3109 Alaska Road
Brier Wshington 98036-8452
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The settlement that has been reached in the Microsoft antitrust 
case is fair and should be accepted on no uncertain terms. I believe 
that this suit has only served to waste millions of dollars and 
innumerable hours of wasted manpower. I feel that this suit has done 
undeniable damage to the U.S. economy especially within the 
technology sector itself.
    This is a sound settlement. The terms will ensure that Microsoft 
no longer commits antitrust violations. In exchange for the 
concessions that Microsoft has made in this case, it will be allowed 
to continue, conducting business as a whole company rather than 
being split up in to smaller separate entities. The terms of the 
settlement require that Microsoft design all future versions of 
Windows to be compatible with the products of its competitors. It 
has also agreed not to commit any action that could be construed as 
retaliatory. I believe that these terms are fair, as is the entire 
settlement; we need not delay its implementation any longer. Please 
continue to support American business as you have with the 
orchestration of this settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Larry Ross



MTC-00026414

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Debbie Tio
    6907 Cummens Court
    Hartford, WI 53027



MTC-00026415

From: Bill Pryor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:27pm
Subject: microsoft case
    Dear Sirs:
    I couldn't be more convinced that Microsoft, though it has done 
a lot to get more people on line, has nonetheless engaged in very 
clearly monopolistic practices and should be prosecuted just as 
Standard Oil was about a century ago.
    William C Pryor, 2011 W. Katella Ave., # 51, Anaheim, CA 
92804.



MTC-00026416

From: Pamela Greaves
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a person that relies on technology for my livelihood, I feel 
I must comment on the Microsoft Settlement issue as a IT 
professional and a consumer and user of technology.
    I have always felt that Microsoft has provided consumers with 
what they want. Their products are made for ease of use and require 
little training to get started using them. There are no other 
operating systems available that offer the ease of use that 
Microsoft Windows provides.
    In reality, if a consumer wants to use an operating system other 
than Microsoft, it is available. But the fact of the matter is that 
the consumer would have to be highly technically knowledgeable for 
that operating system to work properly.
    The role that AOL/Time-Warner has played in this is something I 
have a hard time understanding at all. AOL has itself been 
practicing in a monopolistic fashion for many years. It is 
impossible to have an ISP account with AOL without them loading 
components of little or no value on your computer. The AOL software 
completely takes over all dial up and internet functions and has 
been known to completely destroy peoples operating systems. How can 
this company have any credibility in this matter?
    Microsoft has a support and feedback system in place and has 
been asking consumers what they want to see in a product and 
provided them with that product. While their business practices may 
not be ethical, what they provide to consumers is technically 
unsurpassed by any other software manufacturer.
    Business consumers may find more useable products on the market. 
But home users of computers and software need the ease of use and 
flexibility that Microsoft offers in their products.
    Other companies are lacking in market share only because they 
choose to not market their products. If we don't know they are 
available, how can we seek them out?
    Pamela Greaves
    6116 Vanden Road
    Vacaville, Ca
    95687
    707-446-7347



MTC-00026417

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Microsoft will still be as bad as it is before the settlement.
    Kuo A. Chen



MTC-00026418

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am in favor of the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust suit 
and I think the Department of Justice should make their final 
decision and close the case based on the terms of the settlement. 
Microsoft has agreed to conditions in the settlement that extend 
beyond the scope of the original issues at stake in the suit.
    In the interest of getting on with business, Microsoft agreed to 
document and disclose information that will make it easier for 
computer manufacturers and software developers to have greater 
freedom of choice. Essentially, Microsoft will agree to give its 
software code to other companies, with no regard for its own 
intellectual property rights. Microsoft has also greed not to take 
action against software designs that compete with the Windows 
operating system.
    It is time to settle this suit and stop spending taxpayer 
dollars. Microsoft is a capitalist corporation, and as such, should 
be allowed to pursue its business without being subject to legal 
action.
    Sincerely,
    Jasmin Williams
    492 Henry Street 6B
    Brooklyn, New York 11231



MTC-00026419

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:30pm
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,
    Harmon Byne
    121 Shoal creek Rd

[[Page 27807]]

    Griffin, GA 30223



MTC-00026420

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Claudette Riley
    8310 E McDonald Dr #3106
    Scottsdale, AZ 85250-6276



MTC-00026421

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:33pm
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,
    PAT LAMMERT
    3458 NANDALE DRIVE
    CINCINNATI, OH 45239



MTC-00026422

From: rufus laggren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:36pm
Subject: Break up Microsoft
    In a word, do it. Separate the operating system company from the 
software applications development. Separate the major software 
applications into different companies.
    And also, require the remaining (still monopolistic) companies 
to fully disclose:
    1) Their application file formats when the product's market 
share rises above 30%. At about this level, it becomes a practical 
business necessity to utilize their formats because they become a de 
facto standard of exchange. Secret formats which competing 
applications cannot support fully, reliably, nor in a timely manner, 
effectively kill off all other competition in that application 
niche--creating a monopoly which completely stops competitive 
innovation.
    2) The --complete-- operating system API, that is, the 
feature set available for use by programs running under MS operating 
systems. Application programmers (eg, those who write spreadsheet 
software) must use these features whenever their programs display, 
print, communicate or use any of the hundreds of other facilities 
the operating system (supposedly) provides. Microsoft has 
historically programmed their software (like their spreadsheet) 
using ``unsupported'' ``secret'' features of 
their own operating system (Windows) which competing developers were 
unable to discover in a timely manner. Hence Microsoft application 
software had a huge advantage in relation to it's competitors. Make 
it a crime with large penalties if, during any period when either 
the MS operating system --or-- the MS software has a 
greater than 30% market share, Microsoft application software is 
found to use ``undocumented'' features of a Microsoft 
operating system. Software tools can easily locate and document all 
features used by a program, so this would be almost trivial to 
verify.
    I worked as a programmer and systems analyst from 1975 to 1985 
and as a PC consultant since then. From personal experience, I can 
say the any software product --must-- provide full 
compatibility with existing standards in it's market (eg. MS Excel 
spreadsheet format). And the developer without full access to the 
API of an operating system which his product will run on ... is a 
complete non-starter. By concealing certain features of both its 
operating systems'' API (claiming them as 
``undocumented'' or ``unsupported''--which 
means that MS will change the code at any time convenient to itself 
to cause that feature to disappear), and its major document formats, 
Microsoft has completely stifled competition in the areas of word 
processors, spreadsheets, and to some extent, webpage development.
    The claim that systems would suddenly become unreliable without 
dominant standards provided by MS... does not seem credible. On the 
contrary, with the clear exception of its spreadsheet, Microsoft 
software has proven buggy and difficult to use. Their product 
development cycle does not seem to respond to basic low-level user 
complaint in the way a company eager to please its customers would.
    As a private consumer and as a professional who must try to find 
good products for clients, I ask you to please stop the monopolizing 
of our largest industry. If our software economy is not to suffer 
the melt down that Detroit went through in the 70's when it faced 
real competition for the first time, we must nurture and promote 
effective competition, and actively discourage the cumbersome 
stifling business practices that MS seems to favor.
    Rufus Laggren
    Pacifica, Ca.



MTC-00026423

From: Arek Dreyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I object to the Proposed Final Order.
    Arek Dreyer
    Network Consultant
    5512 N Glenwood Ave #3
    Chicago, IL 60640
    773-251-8931



MTC-00026424

From: GD Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:39pm
Subject: MICROSOFT PENALTY TOO SEVERE
    MY COMMENTS ON THE MICROSOFT CASE ARE.THE PENALTY WAS TO SEVERE 
AND THE OTHER COMPANYS ARE OUT TO HELP THEM SELVES.I HAVE BEEN HURT 
MUCH MORE DOLLAR WISE FROM THE CASE THEN ANYTHING MICEOSOFT DID.IM A 
X-RAY TECH MAKING 22000 DOLLARS A YEAR.WE NEED TO GET THIS CASE 
RESOLVED SOON.BILLIONS HAVE BEEN LOST BECAUSE OF THIS CASE.
    FOREST PETERSON
    320 POLK 121
    MENA,AR
    71953
    1-26-02



MTC-00026425

From: Valden Longhurst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:43pm
Subject: MS settlement
    Regarding the Civil Action No. 98-1232 between the UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA and MICROSOFT CORPORATION, I would like to 
exercise my right and voice my frustration. Microsoft is further 
extending their monopoly by showing no regard to either the court 
orders or the public sector.
    I am an Operations Manager for Kiwi Publishing, located in 
Spokane, WA, and was recently effected by the Microsoft and Qwest 
``sell off/buyout'' deal. We did not choose to have our 
Internet Service Provider changed, but without our concent and 
knowledge Qwest and Microsoft changed hundreds of consumer's 
telephone service without permission, which is illegal under Section 
258 of the Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. ?258.
    As a direct result of this action, our business has suffered. 
This act forcefully prohibited us from contacting hundreds of our 
customers via e-mail because we were not using the more expensive 
and less functional Microsoft e-mail software. Our only option was 
to either individually write each customer or change ISP--both 
of which hurt us. Because of the time-limited circumstance the VERY 
time consumming task of manually contacting our hundreds of 
customers was our only real option.

[[Page 27808]]

    In our efforts to remedy the situation, three times we called 
Microsoft and requested they help us use our old automated system of 
contacting our customers and were thrice told we could only use 
Microsoft products to send out any e-mails with no 
exception--which could only happen if we purchased their 
software.
    Furthermore, since we were taken from Qwest's internet service 
and placed on the Microsoft Network our business internet service 
has been from terribly slow to completely stopping at times. Again, 
in our efforts to remedy the situation we were told in order to 
change to a new ISP, we would have call Qwest and Microsoft to 
CANCEL the internet service circuit and sign up anew for a different 
internet service circuit--again provided by Qwest! Now as an 
engineer in electronics engineering technology and a network 
administrator, I know a circuit cancellation and renewal is NOT 
required if you want to change an ISP. What is their motive? What 
agreement was signed to force that pretended requirement?
    Clearly, Microsoft is still making monopolistic agreements with 
other companies (whether OEMs or not) and tramples the stipulations 
imposed by the courts under their feet. If anything has changed, 
Microsoft seems to be more willing to use its monopoly to harm our 
business and limit our choices than before the courts imposed 
sanctions upon them! What a gross disregard for our laws and lack of 
respect for their customers!
    I add my voice that the proposed settlement (as is) will do 
nothing to stop Microsoft from turning their monopoly into a choke 
yoke for anyone--regardless of law and ethics. Obviously the 
proposed settlement is not forcing Microsoft to change. This country 
can not survive upon a total disregard of ethics. This is 
particularly so with such a large unethical company as Microsoft.
    Will you hold our country to ethical standards by requiring our 
companies to live by ethical standards?
    Valden Longhurst
    101 East Graves Road #11
    Spokane, WA 99218



MTC-00026426

From: Gary Duerksen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am a high-technology professional for whom computer usage is a 
daily necessity for survival. Over the course of my 30-year career I 
have used mainframes, workstations and PC's running JCL, VMS, UNIX, 
DOS, Windows, Mac OS, etc.; my opinions do not represent a parochial 
bias derived from group-identification with one computing platform. 
I also use Microsoft software regularly and have first-hand 
experience with some of Microsoft's questionable tactics, such as 
planting traps in Windows to inform a user of non-existent software 
problems when attempting to run Netscape Navigator.
    The pattern in developing technologies has always shown a 
migration from myriad proprietary standards to a uniform codified 
set of standards, typically overseen by an independent professional 
organization. The development of computer operating systems has also 
moved in this direction, through promotion of operating systems such 
as open-source UNIX and Linux, and through the development of 
platform-independent programming languages such as Java. I am 
convinced that this progression is both beneficial and essential for 
the health of the industry.
    I believe that the Final Judgement proposal agreed to in 
November, 2001 will do little or nothing to ameliorate the very real 
harm that Microsoft's monopolistic abuses continue to do to those 
businesses dependent on the computer industry. Microsoft has used 
its overwhelming market-share of computer operating systems to 
guarantee proprietorship over the application software used on 
virtually all computers. Not only has this practice effectively 
eliminated all competing internet browsers and seriously impeded the 
adoption of Java, it also has the potential to limit the burgeoning 
market for consumer devices that interface with a computer to those 
that incorporate proprietary Microsoft software.
    There is only one remedy that ensures Microsoft will discontinue 
its anticompetitive practices: mandate the breakup of Microsoft into 
separate businesses for operating systems and for application 
software. Not only will this benefit the entire community of 
computer users, it arguably might improve Microsoft's profitability.
    Gary L. Duerksen, Ph.D.
    Director of Optics
    Seneca Networks
    Rockville, MD



MTC-00026427

From: Leslie Crawford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:43pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft settlement
    Please accept the settlement already made, which was reasonable, 
and avoid further expensive unnecessary litigation.
    Leslie Crawford



MTC-00026428

From: Bruce Cartwright
To: MS ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to voice my beliefs about the November 2001 
proposed settlement reached between Microsoft and the government. 
First, the Department of Justice should never have sued Microsoft. 
It was completely wrong. Microsoft should not be forced to litigate 
its business practices beyond what has already transpired. As a 
Christian, I believe that the government was strictly motivated by 
greed.
    The settlement constitutes a great opportunity for this country, 
putting disputes to rest, and allowing Microsoft to progress through 
continued innovation. Microsoft has agreed to have a government 
appointed watchdog monitor their business practices. If Microsoft 
breaks any term of their settlement, they will be held responsible 
for their actions. This is good enough for me to see Microsoft 
agreeing to be monitored.
    The government has moved away from these values as I see it, 
becoming much bigger than itself, not by the people, or for the 
people, but by those who run the people, who own the people. As a 
person who lives by the good word, the people are speaking, I am one 
voice crying out in the wilderness, ``Let Microsoft continue 
onward, support this settlement without any further punishment or 
actions against them.'' This is in the best interest of 
Microsoft, the government, and the economy and for this nation.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Cartwright



MTC-00026429

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
709 Buckwood Drive
Orlando, FL 32806
January 26, 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 Microsoft and the Department of Justice. 
Since the inception of this lawsuit, enormous amounts of federal 
resources have been spent in court negotiations. During this time 
the technology industry has seen a significant decline in its 
markets. Given the current state of the economy, I believe that 
continuation of this lawsuit would serve only to waste more federal 
dollars. The settlement that was reached benefits consumers and the 
technology industry. I urge you to enact the settlement reached in 
November.
    To expand, the settlement agreement most definitely supports the 
consumers of the tech industry. With the release of Windows XP, 
users will now be able to add and delete programs easily into the 
Microsoft system. In addition to this, Microsoft has agreed to 
disclose some of the protocols in the Windows system so that 
developers will design more compatible software. Microsoft has made 
many concessions in order to resolve this issue.
    I would hope that the Justice Department recognizes the 
importance of enacting this settlement. Thank you for your time 
regarding this issue.
    Sincerely,
    William Underwood
    cc: Representative Ric Keller



MTC-00026430

From: todd chatman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I'm writing to denounce the proposed settlement of U.S. v 
Microsoft.
    I join a deafening chorus of both experts and laymen who all 
agree: this settlement will do virtually nothing to create a better 
environment for competition in the PC

[[Page 27809]]

software industry or to improve the social good derived from that 
industry. Didn't you, the DOJ, learn your lesson in 1995 when you 
slapped Microsoft's wrist and then had to listen to Bill Gates 
publicly ridicule the consent decree as essentially meaningless? He 
was right; that decision did nothing to limit Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices, largely becuase the technological map it 
responded to had been completely redrawn by the time it was written. 
The same is true in this case--it has lasted just long enough 
for Microsoft to have moved beyond the terms of this settlement into 
new realms of market monopolization. The American people cannot 
afford to sue Microsoft every 3-5 years while its 
technological future continues to be held hostage to Microsoft's 
whims. I beg you: Discard this settlement, rewrite it with real 
teeth, and pursue its enforcement until we see real innovation and 
competition in the market again.
    Sincerely,
    Todd Chatman
    Urbana, IL University of Illinois --



MTC-00026431

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:50pm
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,
    Rosemarie Knorr
    2470 Tapestry Court
    Livermore, CA 94550



MTC-00026433

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,FIN@mobilization office.com@inetgw
Date: 1/26/02 8:56pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I am shocked that the U>S> Government went after Microsoft 
when Time Warner should have been first. The letter that was e 
mailed to me never arrived. What the Government did does not make 
sense. If they want to break up a company why wasn't Time-Warner the 
one???????????????????????????????



MTC-00026434

From: Clint Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am one of the many US citizens concerned by this settlement 
and the ways in which it will affect Microsoft's monopolistic 
practices. In particular, I would like to point out problems with 
the following sections:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white box'' 
OEMs, if they offer competing products. Section III.B. also allows 
Microsoft to offer unspecified Market Development 
Allowances--in effect, discounts--to OEMs. For instance, 
Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based on the 
number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems sold by 
that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly 
on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its market share 
in other areas, such as office software or ARM-compatible operating 
systems.
    Thank you for your time.
    Clint Allen



MTC-00026435

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:59pm
Subject: Mcrosoft ettlement
    i think that the Microsoft settlement is good because it give 
people choices which are bound by the sherman anit-trust act.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026436

From: juanito
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:59pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    From what I've heard of the Microsoft anti-trust settlement, I 
believe it to be not only unfair, but highly counter-productive if 
its goal is to weaken Microsoft's monopoly on the computing 
industry.
    Juanito Moore



MTC-00026437

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Pedro Sanchez
    4765 sw 6 st.
    Miami, FL 33134-1407



MTC-00026438

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    John Kraemer
    3349 Blue Rock Rd.
    Cincinnati, OH 45239



MTC-00026440

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Darlene Brown
    205 John Allen Rd.
    Roxboro, NC 27573

[[Page 27810]]



MTC-00026441

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Carolyn Ewing
    116 West 28th Avenue
    Kennewick, WA 99337-5010



MTC-00026442

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:07pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Dear Sirs at the Department of Justice,
    I object to the amount of money and time that the Department of 
Justice has chosen to dedicate to the Microsoft Case. It occurs to 
me that Microsoft has spent large sums of money to provide products 
to the American consumer at competitive prices that the American 
public have chosen to expend. Not only are the products innovative 
but the selection of products make us the consumer more productive 
assisting us to be more efficient as well.
    My understanding of the proposed agreement judge it to fair, 
reasonable, but also hard-line. It also as reported by the press far 
exceeds the findings of the Court of Appeals. I contend that the 
American public would rather see American spirit and innovation be 
spent in the form of and on American products that are developed by 
Microsoft through research and development versus the contrary, the 
waste of taxpayer dollars and revenue on litigation.
    Other priorities are obvious and relevant.
    Thank you for your time in reading this letter.
    Alan Roman
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026443

From: Jason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is worse than a slap on the wrist for 
Microsoft.
    Microsoft has used many tactics to leverage it's monopoly in the 
computer market. The proposed settlement does not address these 
tactics or effectively provide recourse.
    The proposal does nothing to stop Microsoft to keep using 
Windows licenses as leverage to increase market share.
    It still allows Microsoft to use punitive measures against OEMs 
that ship computers without Microsoft's operating system. (Even if 
the end user has no intention of using a Microsoft operating 
system).
    It does not prohibit license terms used by Microsoft to prohibit 
open source apps from running properly in Windows and fails to 
prohibt intentional incompatibilites that Microsoft engineers place 
in Microsoft apps to keep them from running on other operating 
systems.
    The suggestion that Microsoft should ``donate'' 
software to schools is a laughably transparent coup de grace for 
Microsoft. It's not a punishment to be given a billion dollar 
competitve advantage in one of the few areas where your company 
doesn't completely dominate the market.
    Since Microsoft more or less copied the Macintosh interface, a 
good start for a recourse would be to require Microsoft to pay a 
small royalty to Apple Computer for every copy of Windows 95 and 
Windows 98 sold. (under the provision that Apple be required to use 
a percentage of this money to subsidize low cost computer equipment 
to schools.) .net is the next mechanism that Microsoft is trying to 
use as a control lever. If .net technologies only work on IE running 
on Windows, Microsoft can use .net to further leverage it's position 
while forcing users to interact with the internet on Microsoft's 
terms. This needs to be addressed, possibly by making .net an open 
source project under the auspices of Netscape and/or Apple. Netscape 
might be able to monetize .net and ensure that .net technologies 
work on all browsers and operating systems.
    I don't pretend to know the feasibility of such solutions and 
they may well be ridiculous but I do know this, Microsoft should not 
be rewarded for it's behavior.



MTC-00026444

From: Dave C
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I want to open this with a preface. I am not an anti-Microsoft 
proponent and am a regular user of their products. However, I also 
believe that the American laws, although not perfect, need to be 
obeyed. I have been following the Microsoft trial with some interest 
for awhile now and here are my conclusions.
    1. Microsoft was originally found guilty of being a predatory 
monopoly and ordered to be split into two pieces.
    2. A panel of appellate judges found that although none of the 
previous judge's findings were incorrect in any way there was a bias 
against Microsoft and that the breaking of the company was not 
necessary. What struck me here was that NONE of the findings of 
facts against Microsoft were overturned.
    3. Microsoft became a very large financial backer (for the first 
time ever) in the last presidential election.
    4. After the election all charges were summarily dropped. As a 
law-abiding and voting member of this great country I find it 
disturbing that our judicial system can be so easily (apparently) 
bought out. Our fore-fathers instituted a system of checks and 
balances to keep one branch of government from gaining too much 
power over the other branches of government, and yet this seems to 
be the case. In a situation in which the defendant is undeniably 
guilty (the guilt of Microsoft was upheld by the appellate panel of 
judges) a campaign contribution was enough to have all charges 
dropped. To allow this mockery of our judicial system would be a 
crime unto itself and reduce the authority and respect that it has 
engendered over the past two-and-a-quarter centuries. This must not 
be allowed. I do not think that the punishment should be more than 
the crime permits, but clearly Microsoft has repeated broken the 
laws of the United States without any regard or shame. This must not 
be allowed. Thank you.
    Dave Cowen
    [email protected]
    ``Teach us to number our days aright, that we may gain a 
heart of wisdom.''--
    Psalm 90:12



MTC-00026445

From: Peter Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony
    Despite the restrictions placed upon the Microsoft Hegemony by 
the Settlement I doubt the Microsoft trust will be effected. 
Althought the settlement has limited Microsoft's ability to control 
its competition it has not hit the root of the problem. Just by 
giving Microsoft competition room to grow will not be able to over 
turn the vast hold Microsoft has on the software industry. Microsoft 
is to large almost all of the worlds computers already contain 
Microsoft operating systems that are stacked full of Microsoft's 
programs. To the average consumer Microsoft is synonymous with the 
word computer most people only know how to interact with a computer 
using Windows. Allowing the Microsoft corporation to survive will do 
nothing to create companies capable of serious competition. The only 
true solution to the Microsoft Hegemony is by breaking the company 
up to create competition within the remnants of Microsoft allowing 
smaller outside companies to compete directly.
    Carl Johnson



MTC-00026446

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to end this ``POLITICALLY BASED'' farce. I 
believe Microsoft has comported themselves in a professional and 
forthright manner throughout this politically motivated ``WITCH 
HUNT'' at the TAX PAYERS expense. If the well connected 
companies represented by the states

[[Page 27811]]

attorneys cannot compete in the marketplace then good riddance.



MTC-00026447

From: David M. Weatherell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I oppose the application of antitrust laws against Microsoft. I 
have developed software for 20+ years and have used several software 
development tools and environments. Microsoft has made my job far 
easier than it otherwise would have been. In fact, it has probably 
made possible the very existence of my job.
    The integration of the operating system and user applications is 
crucial to my productivity, and using applications developed by the 
same company radically reduces the learning curve for new products. 
In addition, the number of software errors in these products is 
reduced because the same company produces all of the software. In 
short, Microsoft should not be punished for improving the lives of 
software developers and end users.
    Under a system of objective law, the above information would be 
irrelevant. The application of justice is not contingent on public 
opinion. Nor is it contingent on contradictory laws that violate 
basic property rights and guarantees against involuntary servitude. 
The Federal Government has neither the moral right nor the legal 
authority to punish Microsoft under the antitrust laws.
    David M. Weatherell
    Sr. Software Engineer
    (585) 217-9445
    1080 Floribunda Way, Apt. G
    Webster, NY 14580
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026448

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Marjorie LaCour
    838 Tomlinson Terrace
    Lake Mary, FL 32746-6310



MTC-00026449

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:16pm
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,
    Ann Blackburn
    725 Port Malabar Blvd., NE
    #203
    Palm Bay, FL 32905



MTC-00026450

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    ENOUGH!!! End this witch hunt now. I am tired of the government 
spending my money on lawsuits to give advantages to big-money 
software companies under the guise of fair trade. If netscape and 
Sun can't use their own resourses to compete, don't use my pitiful 
tax contributions to increase their wealth. Let the market place 
dictate terms of cooperation, not the government. This lawsuit has 
contributed to the recession enough. Don't let it go any further. 
Settle!!
    Thank you.
    Jim Malneritch, taxpayer and voter.



MTC-00026451

From: Jason Bergstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attention: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the proposed 
judgment in the U.S. DoJ vs. Microsoft antitrust suit. The lack of 
any meaningful punishment of Microsoft or any hint of reparations to 
a once competitive software industry tells me that my tax dollars 
have not been well spent.
    Please revisit the judgment.
    Thank you for your time,
    Jason Bergstrom
    [email protected]



MTC-00026452

From: Gregory Liban
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone. I constantly sense that people are 
seeking revenge against Microsoft in a mistaken way. Microsoft is 
not a Tobacco company whose products have caused cancer. Microsoft 
is also not a company whom has thrived because it squeezes out 
competition just for the sake of market share.
    Microsoft wants to give a Billion dollars worth of Computer 
equipment to those who need it, and whose side does the government 
take. Gee, not with those whom might need the computers, but with 
Microsoft's competitors! So where is the cancer here? Now, because 
its competitors aren't happy, they want to question the very 
decision of the court and the precepts of the decision in the 
Microsoft case. Come on; let's get our thinking hats on straight. 
What is deciding the decision of all the Microsoft issues? Is it 
poor competition, or poor politics? What is the cancer here? Has 
government killed the cancer, or is it feeding the cancer? Perhaps 
the government needs to take a couple of steps back and really 
figure out what is going on.
    Why can't half the automation equipment purchased by Microsoft 
come from its competitors like Linux, Sun or BeOS. I can answer 
that! It's because it doesn't meet the need of the common user. Duh? 
Apple is a niche product--or at least its in many of the 
schools. Gee, why can't Apple be called a monopoly? Perhaps the 
government needs to spur across-the-board automation industry growth 
in non-legal means.
    I enjoy Microsoft products and they provide jobs to millions of 
people in the computer industry. Moreover, Microsoft leads the 
industry in innovation and meeting the consumer's needs. Don't 
disrupt a company that helps all of us in so many needs. Moreover, I 
ask that you don't listen to all the voices that shout Microsoft 
hatred!
    Being a politician or someone in political office isn't always 
popular. I know because I work in the Federal Government. But, we 
are always entitled to make good decisions based upon the best 
available information. Good or bad, easy or hard.
    Thanks!
    Gregory Liban
    Gregory A. Liban
    [email protected]
    254-699-3460



MTC-00026453

From: Jean and Warren Doremus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please see attached letter.
JEAN & WARREN DOREMUS
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U S Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Permit us to offer some of our views about the Microsoft 
antitrust case. In our judgment,

[[Page 27812]]

the settlement agreement reached between Microsoft and your 
department is fair, reasonable, sensible and in the best interests 
of all parties concerned. We believe it addresses the issues that 
brought about the case and which nine states have approved. We see 
no need for further federal action, particularly while Microsoft is 
negotiating with the remaining states to reach an agreement.
    Although the settlement may reach further than Microsoft may 
have desired, it recognizes that settling this case sooner is better 
than later. It requires Microsoft to change the way it develops, 
licenses and markets its software, as well as the way it deals with 
independent vendors.
    Not only does the agreement handle past and present problems, it 
establishes provisions on how to deal with possible future problems. 
A technical oversight committee will ensure that Microsoft complies 
with terms of the settlement, and competitors will be allowed to sue 
Microsoft directly if they feel they've been treated unfairly.
    There comes a time when this litigation must be put behind us, 
and that time is now. Certainty and stability should be 
reestablished in the IT sector. The cloud that has been hanging over 
it for all the years this case has been before the courts ought to 
be lifted so that the sun can once again have the chance to shine on 
our economy.
    Sincerely,
    Jean s. Doremus Warren S. Doremus
    66 CAMBERLEY PLACE, PENFIELD, NEW YORK, 14526-2707
    E-MAIL: [email protected]



MTC-00026454

From: KALMAN V ILLYEFALVI
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in favor of the agreement reached in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I would like to see the remaining states that are 
not party to the agreement, settle the case as well. I think their 
position is ridiculous. It is a shame they have not made the wise 
decision that the Department of Justice has made to put the case to 
rest.
    The terms of the settlement agreement are fair and reasonable. 
Upon approval of the agreement, Microsoft will change the way they 
handle their relationships with computer manufacturers who install 
software that compete with Windows. They have also agreed to grant 
manufacturers new rights so they may configure Windows to run with 
other features of the competition's software programs.
    Nothing more should be expected or required of Microsoft than 
what is contained in the settlement agreement. Thank you for your 
time and your efforts to settle this lawsuit.
    Sincerely,
    Kalman V. Illyefalvi and Phyllis S. Illyefalvi



MTC-00026455

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    We favor settlement. Delmar & Jean Pittman e-mail address 
[email protected]



MTC-00026456

From: raphael(u)jones Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    It is with great consternation, that I see this issue continuing 
to take up so much of the time in our courts at taxpayers expense. 
Microsoft may have made some errors of judgment, but AOL, and 
Netscape in particular, was attempting to corner the market 
themselves. They just finished last. This whole matter is about a 
competitive, capitalist market, and fairness for the most part is 
not the issue. I request that the USDOJ disallow this suit and let 
the market determine what it wants, and may the best, or most 
aggressive win.
    Regards,
    Raphael L. Jones



MTC-00026457

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement between the US Department of Justice and 
Microsoft is insufficient to remedy the anticompetitive practices of 
Microsoft.
    My main concern is regarding the finding upheld by the appeals 
court that Microsoft ``attempted to mislead and threaten 
software developers in order to contain and subvert Java middleware 
technologies''. Microsoft should now be required to include a 
certified compatible Java virtual machine. In the time since 
Microsoft engaged in illegal conduct against Java, it has developed 
competing middleware which it is bundling in the operating system as 
part of it's so-called .NET environment. Microsoft, having engaged 
in illegal conduct to delay the industry acceptance of Java, now 
feels safe to exclude Java. This damage needs to be remedied but is 
not addressed in the proposed settlement. Microsoft should be 
compelled to include Java for a period that will compensate for the 
damage inflicted by Microsoft's illegal conduct.
    The preceding is a minimal addition that I believe should be 
imposed on Microsoft. The ultimate solution is to separate 
Microsoft's platform development (the Window's operating system and 
.NET services) and the application divisions (the browser, Office, 
etc.). This is the only way to be certain that other software 
application companies can compete fairly with Microsoft 
applications. Until this separation is made, Microsoft applications 
will continue to unfairly influence extensions in the Microsoft 
platform and to unfairly gain advance knowledge of features 
available in the Microsoft platform. Furthermore, the operating 
system source code should be made open to other computer companies 
so that they may develop and market operating-system enhancements. 
This will allow competition in the PC operating system, which has 
stagnated as Microsoft merely extends their monopoly by tightly 
coupling applications to the operating system. New versions of the 
operating system have added integrated web browser functionality, 
collaboration applications, and other applications but, meanwhile, 
the operating system core has remained largely unchanged since the 
release of Windows 95 and Windows NT more than 6 years ago. The 
operating system should be made open to give others the opportunity 
to extend platform functionality.
    Let me close by saying that it is my belief that the current 
stagnation in the computing industry is largely due to Microsoft's 
uncompetitive practices. They have not only actively thwarted 
competition, as found by the appeals court, but have created 
disincentives to competition by expanding their definition of 
``operating system'' to include emerging applications and 
``middleware''. Microsoft should be forced to include 
Java, separate the company's platform and application divisions and 
open the operating system to competition as a minimal remedy for 
their uncompetitive behavior. This will also allow other companies 
to compete fairly and innovate without fear that years of investment 
and innovation will show up as a mere feature of the next release of 
Windows.
    Effective measures to counter Microsoft's illegal conduct must 
be taken to ensure the health of the US Technology industry.
    Sincerely,
    James M. A. Begole, Ph.D.
    Computer Scientist



MTC-00026458

From: Russ Aaronson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Russell Aaronson
5300 SW 11th St.
Margate, FL 33068
January 26, 2002
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
 RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I teach English and SAT Prep to students at an inner city high 
school in South Florida. I have reviewed the documents relating to 
the Microsoft Settlement, and I have found several elements 
contained within to be highly alarming. I'm certain you have 
received a considerable number of responses that specifically relate 
to the language of the settlement, but I would like to appeal to you 
with a different technique. This letter will provide a few 
``real world'' examples of how Microsoft's policies have 
hampered students'' potential for using new technologies.
    On a daily basis, students enter my room to print out documents 
they created outside the school. They take the documents created 
with Microsoft Works and try to edit and

[[Page 27813]]

print them at school, but this never works because Works documents 
are incompatible with Microsoft's own Office programs that we use at 
school. Stunned, student after student will ask me how the same 
company can make two virtually indistinguishable programs on the 
same platform (again, created by the same company), but neglect to 
make them work with each other. It never occurs to them that the 
Works program that comes ``free'' with the computers their 
parents purchased is useless for the majority of their schoolwork. 
Unable to explain the logic or fairness behind this situation, I 
send them on a scavenger hunt for a working computer with Works 
installed so they may complete their work.
    This is also a situation that the proposed settlement will not 
remedy. It is difficult enough to help students with programs 
created on other platforms (though every other platform offers some 
free, simple method for translating documents back and forth), let 
alone help them with works created with deliberately handicapped 
software they were forced to purchase with their computers.
    The cost issue also inhibits our ability to make wise software 
purchases at school. Microsoft's Office suite has always been pricey 
for education customers, but the new ``XP'' marketing 
strategy could make the situation untenable. In a school where it is 
important to keep every available computer running for as long as 
possible, the prospects of purchasing productivity software that 
``expires'' when a newer version arrives (or even the 
prospect of ``leasing'' software for the same price that 
used to be required to own it indefinitely) are horrifying. Of 
course, an educational institution has the responsibility to prepare 
students for the business world, so we must consider the 
``industry standard'' software, regardless of cost. Put 
bluntly, this technique places Microsoft's software distribution 
strategy as the one used by drug dealers who frequent the 
neighborhood surrounding our school. Again, the proposed remedy does 
nothing to prevent this situaiton, and as such, the settlement will 
prove to be as practically useless as an Office XP install disc will 
be a year from now.
    Furthermore, I cordially invite you to a comprehensive tour of 
our school and it's technological backbone. At Boyd Anderson High 
School, we take pride in our ability to overcome adversity. I simply 
wish I could tell my students that their government's concerns about 
the technological barriers to their success are more important than 
protecting one of the corporations that creates the barrieres.
    Hopefully, your judgement will help me change this situation.
    SIncerely,
    Russell Aaronson
    Teacher
    Boyd Anderson High School
    (Home of the Fighting Cobras)
    3050 NW 41st ST
    Lauderdale Lakes, FL 33319
    (954) 497-3800, x350
    Fax (954) 497-3819



MTC-00026459

From: Wilfred W Foreman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle theMicrosoft litigation now. It will not help 
consumers to drag out the settlement. We would be most benefitted by 
a timely settlement.
    The proposed settlement seems reasonable and could be a help to 
our stumbling economy. Dragging it out further will only enrich 
lawyers and special interests. Please help us.
    Wilfred & Imogene Foreman



MTC-00026460

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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, Shirley Shirley 9043 Letha Lane Shreveport, LA 71118



MTC-00026461

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Ellie Drew. I am president of the Institute for 
Conscious Change in Tucson, AZ. I wish to thank all of the public 
servants in the DOJ for their excellent work in pursuing the Anti-
trust case against MS. However the currently proposed remedy fails 
to even address its own stated intents. Please consider all of the 
findings in the case against MS in modifying the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment and come up with a new remedy which addresses these 
findings and the current RPFJ's stated intents.
    I include here considerations for bringing the RPFJ into accord 
with the case findings, the RPFJ's stated intents and reasonable 
remedy given the nature of the situation. My views are substantially 
the same as those in the comment filed by Robert E. Litan, Roger D. 
Noll, and William D. Nordhaus. Where I differ in view is in the 
number and degree of separations. In number: I urge you to require 
all non-Operating Systems code (using the traditional definition 
from Computer Science and overseen by an independent panel of 
university professors doing Operating Systems research) be removed 
from the ownership of and access by the Divested OS companies. The 
resulting removed assets would be passed ``over the wall'' 
to one of three independent Application companies. These Application 
companies would be delineated into ``client 
applications'', ``server applications'', and 
``development tools.'' Failure to comply with this 
divestiture within a one year time frame would result in the code 
for all products found not to have been appropriately apportioned be 
placed in the public domain. In degree: I urge a new Final Judgment 
that requires all of the resulting divested companies to make freely 
available for use all APIs, component/application interfaces, 
protocols, and other interconnections at the time of the decree and 
in perpetuity. Where any existing outside standards exist for any of 
these interfaces all divested companies would be required to 
implement -without extension or modification- these standards while 
removing interfaces which overlap any standards within a two year 
time frame. Failure to comply would result in the code used to 
implement any non-conforming interfaces be placed in the public 
domain. In addition all applications produced by the divested 
companies must be marketed and sold separately for a period of seven 
years. Failure to comply (such as bundling or tying in software 
components of different companies or components of the same company) 
would result in the code of the affected software component being 
placed in the public domain.
    These remedies and penalties for non-compliance are just and due 
given the egregious nature of the defendants crime and behavior.
    Sincerely,
    Ellie Drew



MTC-00026462

From: Kathy J Hering
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:45pm
Subject: Please settle this!!
    Dear Friends-
    As a senior citizen I believe it would be great idea to settle 
with microsoft. During the time this plan was in place under our 
last president, he could have been working on the terrorists and may 
have prevented the incident of last Sedember. I think it's about 
time that this country get its priorities in order.
    Thanks for listening,
    Bob Hering



MTC-00026463

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:43pm
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

[[Page 27814]]

Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly 
harmed by Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic 
industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Nick Fletcher
    P.O. Box 3374
    Scottsdale, AZ 85271-3374



MTC-00026464

From: Lawrence (038) Sarah Ballew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I am writing to encourage you in the case against Microsoft. 
While this company has certainly done a great job of generating jobs 
and profits, it has done so in a manner which is short sighted and 
costly to the future of computing in the USA. Please do not simply 
slap them on the wrist. This company needs to know that it's 
predatory pricing practices and it's monopolistic methodologies are 
inconsistent with a free and fair market.
    I think one of the clearest signs of Microsoft's negative 
approach to the whole business of computing is their offer to flood 
America's schools with old, used, inefficient hardware and software 
as a way of making amends. That they would be allowed to push their 
monopolistic practices down the throats of schools is almost 
laughable if it weren't so typical of Microsoft's thinking. Don't 
let that happen.
    Thank you for your patient and persistent work on this matter. I 
am sure that you will proceed in this matter with a long term view 
and with a desire to see the USA public have at their fingertips the 
very best software applications American companies can produce.
    Sincerely,
    Lawrence Ballew



MTC-00026465

From: Tom Galvin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is bad idea. The remedy does not correct 
the abusive behavior of the monopolistic situation.



MTC-00026466

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:55pm
Subject: RE: MICROSSOFT JUDGEMENT--SETTLEMENT
    GENTLEMEN:
    CONSUMER INTERESTS HAVE BEEN WELL SERVED. IT IS TIME TO END THIS 
COSTLY AND DAMAGING LITIGATION. PLEASE SETTLE WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY.
    THANK YOU!
    SINCERELY,
    ROGER W. BRYSON
    5401 SHADOW LAWN DR.
    SARASOTA, FL. 34242



MTC-00026467

From: Fred C Hinds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I think the time has come that you go with the current proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. These people have helped provide computer 
equipment and other software products that we as senior citizens can 
afford . With their help we will have more new electronic equipment 
to help us and YOU with our daily efforts. In my opinion the time 
has come to to end this costly and damaging litigation.
    Thank you for your time.
    F.C. Hinds Jr.
    1410 Lorrie Dr.
    Richardson, Texas 75080



MTC-00026468

From: James Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was a user of Windows 98 from 1998 until just last year. I 
witnessed first-hand how hard Microsoft made it for me to choose 
Netscape. Indeed, at one point I did give up Netscape for IE just 
because it was simpler.
    I know use Windows XP, and have been nearly forced into using 
Microsoft's Passport service, which I don't think is secure, forced 
into having IE, MSN Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows 
Messenger, you name it, I've been forced to install it. What angers 
me most, though, is that Microsoft has made Windows more bloated and 
less secure by making me install the IE code (Go to www.news.com and 
search for ``IE'' and ``security'' and you'll 
see what I mean.), and it makes me angry that I must suffer these 
security holes because Microsoft wants IE on my computer whether I 
like it or not.
    Forcing Microsoft to ship a fully clean version of Windows is 
absolutely necessary to restore competition where there now is none, 
on the Microsoft desktop. Moreover, OEMs need to be assured that 
Microsoft cannot penalize them for choosing this version of Windows. 
Microsoft should market this version equally as aggressively as 
Windows 2000 Home, Professional, or their descendants for a period 
of no less than 10 years. The price of this ``Windows 
Lite'' should be lower than the standard version of Windows 
enough to compensate for (A) the amount of code removed and (B) the 
percentage of features removed from the interface.
    Further, Microsoft should no longer be able to dictate to any 
OEM whether a dual-boot operating system can be released on that 
OEM's systems in any way, nor can they be penalized, threatened, or 
coerced into dropping deals with Microsoft's competitors. This 
moratorium should be in effect for 10 years with an option for an 
additional 5-10 years at the court's discretion.
    James Russell



MTC-00026469

From: Kenneth W Wegener
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement that has been reached with 
Microsoft is fair and will benefit consumers. Therefore I urge that 
you accept that settlement and bring to an end this long trial. It 
will help our economy much more than continued litigation.
    Kenneth Wegener



MTC-00026470

From: Geoff Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    When I joined Intel in 1997, they had a well defined roadmap for 
releases of faster new processors. But when AMD caught up to and 
surpassed Intel's performance in 2000, Intel aggressively pulled in 
its release schedules to be more competitive. That's the kind of 
competitive pressure that benefits consumers.
    Microsoft does not have that kind of competitive pressure. This 
vacuum allows Microsoft to manage its roadmap as it sees fit, and 
consumers just have to accept it. The question is not whether 
Microsoft's products are getting better (they are), it's how much 
better would they be if they had competition. The gap between what 
Microsoft is delivering now and what Microsoft would be delivering 
if it had competition is the measure of society's loss from 
Microsoft's monopoly.
    As a consumer, I was appalled by the Justice Department's 
actions in settling this law suit. After Microsoft had been found 
guilty of illegally maintaining its monopoly, the Justice Department 
unilaterally disarmed themselves by announcing they would not seek a 
breakup of Microsoft. Then they announced a settlement that had no 
penalties, no admission of guilt, and a series of restrictions 
riddled with loopholes and escape clauses.
    This settlement does very little to protect consumers from 
Microsoft's monopoly power. It creates a situation where future 
illegal Microsoft actions require further negotiations or further 
expensive, time consuming court actions to be stopped. By taking a 
hard line on every upcoming issue, Microsoft can delay and negotiate 
concessions to actions that are harming consumers. Thus, this 
settlement provides inadequate consumer protection.
    After reading about the Enron bankruptcy scandal, it is clear 
that the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch have serious 
conflicts of interest that limit their ability to control large 
businesses. Only the Judicial Branch, which does not need re-
election funding, has the independence needed to protect consumers 
from over zealous corporations. Microsoft has shown contempt for 
this anti-trust trial since it began. The newly appointed Justice 
Department leadership has shown very questionable judgment. It is 
now up to the Judicial Branch to assert its authority in protecting 
the rights of consumers by rejecting this proposed settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Geoff Murray



MTC-00026471

From: H Davis

[[Page 27815]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:00pm
Subject: be fair with Microsoft
    To whom this concern:
    I have been following this case since it all started. I know 
what this is all about. Companies like Oracle, Sun, and Netscape, 
are after the demise of Microsoft. I hate to think what will happen 
to the computer industry, it will be too costly for the most of us 
with nothing standard. Where was these companies when the PC 
industry was getting started. These come lately companies are only 
after the free for all, after Microsoft is defeated.
    Thanks for reading this.
    Harvey Davis
    [email protected]



MTC-00026472

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Consumer interests have been well served, and the time to end 
this costly and damaging litigation has come.
    Rheboris & Lloyd Reichen
    Memphis, TN



MTC-00026473

From: john spaur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be broken up.
    I have been using computers since 1985 and started with the DOS 
operating system, before windows. Since the window operating system 
came into being I have seen a multitude of good software programs 
and the companies that wrote them go out of business. There is no 
reason to embed web browsers, movie and video programs, and word 
processing programs in the operating system. Independent software 
programs, designed by firms other than microsoft, can be linked with 
the operating system. microsoft is a terrible monopoly if it is not 
broken up and severely punished, one day the world will regret this 
tremendously. However, no one will really believe that until it is 
too late, and it will be too late when all of the computer operating 
systems are microsoft and running only microsoft programs.



MTC-00026474

From: Darlene Keefer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 10:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Darlene Keefer
114 Valley Road
Roundup, MT 59072
January 26, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Darlene Keefer



MTC-00026476

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Nancy Crotty
    10124 S. Hangman Valley Road
    Spokane, WA 99224



MTC-00026477

From: Stan Strick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:08pm
Subject: Letter in support of Microsoft to Attorney General John 
Ashcroft



MTC-00026477--0001

1033 Kerria Lane
Camano Island, WA 98282
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am familiar with the settlement that was reached in November. 
I feel that it is a fair settlement. Further litigation would only 
prolong the process. I believe that the decision was reached with a 
great deal of effort. The time was right to settle.
    If further litigation is pursued, more of my money as a taxpayer 
will be spent. Stop spending the taxpayers'' money as well as 
Microsoft's money and resolve the settlement. I think what is 
important are the benefits we will receive from the settlement that 
has already been reached. I especially feel that the computers and 
software in the schools are essential for our children in this age 
of technology.
    Microsoft is making a good faith effort to appease its critics 
with this settlement. The provisions requiring information sharing 
and non-retaliation agreements will increase competition in the 
technology market. I support the settlement and look forward to the 
end of this case.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00026478

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00026479

From: Jeff Hannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 01/25/02
John J. Hannon
13423 S. 46th Way
Phoenix, AZ 85044
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order (Microsoft Settlement)
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    I wish to respectfully express my personal opinion to you 
regarding the current Microsoft Settlement as provided for under the 
Tunney Act.
    I work for a company in Arizona which produces software utilized 
by infrastructure contractors (highways, dams, power plants, 
airports, etc.) in the United States and Canada to bid and build 
projects. Since the mid 1980's, this software has run atop Microsoft 
operating systems. We compete against several other products in the 
marketplace, and win clients by having a superior product and 
services. This firm I work for (to pay my mortgage) is attempting 
now to build its future software ``platform independent'', 
so as not to be beholden to Microsoft operating systems and 
applications (MS Office). Attempts such as these, to have the option 
of using Microsoft products, but not to have to RELY on them, is one 
aspect that should be considered in the Settlement.
    I disagree with the settlement for two reasons:
    1.The language in the Settlement gives Microsoft MORE power to 
stifle Free Software and Open-Source Software development.
    If this is the Court's (and the Administration's) political 
intent, then so be

[[Page 27816]]

it, but constituents should be made aware of the implications, and 
why their government deems it so. I'm sure by now you know that the 
``free'' in Free Software refers to freedom and not price.
    Since our nation was built upon these principles, any settlement 
which infringes upon freedom is detrimental to our way of life. 
Regardless of Microsoft's rhetoric to the contrary, Free and Open-
Source software gains customers and users because of having superior 
quality. This is truly the Open Market at work. Microsoft does not 
seem to embrace the ``open market'' concept (where 
inferior products can be discarded by consumers), nor the concept of 
freedom (freedom of choice). The settlement appears to empower 
Microsoft more than before they were convicted of breaking the law.
    2.The Settlement is detrimental to our nation's multi-billion 
dollar Construction Industry.
    Since the Settlement has virtually no penalty for Microsoft, and 
even subtly gives them added powers (J.1 and J.2), the construction 
industry will continue to spend billions of dollars for non-
productive and non-needed operating system upgrades and hardware. 
This money would be better spent on investments in new jobs and 
capital equipment (or as profits invested in the stock market). Just 
at the point in time when the industry is being offered more 
sensible CHOICES for alternative platforms and superior 
applications, the Settlement appears to make attempts at beating 
those choices backward.
    I was under the impression that the the Settlement was all about 
``consumers'', not about protecting the position of a 
convicted monopolist. The Internet and the World Wide Web as we know 
it today, which was made possible by open-source software, requires 
little more than internet access as the cost of entry. This 
settlement will make it cost much more.
    Thank You''
    John J. Hannon
    [email protected]



MTC-00026480

From: Scott Dier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    The Settlement with Microsoft is lacking to give Open Source 
software an equivilant ground in the world of embedded products. 
Let's say I wanted to make a device that hooked into a network with 
Windows machines and I just wanted it to work. In this endevour, I 
decided to contribute code to the samba project and was just making 
this device for no profit.
    Now, since J,2,c says that I need to have a ``business 
need'' for the informations, I can't just call Microsoft up for 
a full API specification for a paticular communications protocol 
that they have.
    Worse yet, if I were to be able to get that API, I have to ask 
permission to use the application I wrote because of the verfication 
requirements.
    This is very counterintutive to most IETF (Internet Engineering 
Task Force) protocols that are used on the Internet and freely 
developed and distributed for the cause of interoperability. 
Microsoft wants to contain its communications protocols from Open 
Source third parties so we can't create an alternative 
communications platform that can walk-the-walk with Windows 
platforms. They could easily argue that the Open Source program 
using their API is going to destroy the vialibility of their 
business and that the open disclosure in code will allow others to 
develop possibly ``incorrect'' implementations of their 
protocols. Sometimes they might worry that a bug in their protocol 
design could be massaged by a incorrect implementation and that it 
would be the *implementors* fault for this, not theirs for designing 
protcols to be robust. Therfore, I worry that they will just deny 
anything with a Open Source license to pass their verification even 
if it has a compliant implementation of the protocol.
    The fight isn't about destroying Microsoft, but for forcing 
interoperability and alternative means from the single vendor that 
many have been ``locked in'' to for years. This could 
extend the market for Microsoft, ISVs, and Open Source users and 
developers to work together and not have a rift in communications 
between platforms.
    I also believe that some of the arguments that will be recieved 
detailing the plight of this settlement and how it helps alternative 
platforms for running windows applications are very important and I 
would like the Court to please take Jeremy P. White's comments 
seriously and carefully.
    Lastly, I also echo the comments by Dan Kegel and his Open 
Letter, found at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html .
Scott M. Dier
1624 Chatham Ave.
Arden Hills, MN 55112
651-631-1827
Employer, but not speaking on their behalf:
University Of Minnesota, Computer Science and Engineering
Systems Administrator
    Scott Dier  http://
www.ringworld.org/



MTC-00026481

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:07pm
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,
    Mark Lento
    P.O. Box 6419
    Hillsborough, NJ 08844-6419



MTC-00026482

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:11pm
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,
    Robert Hoebel
    416 Madison Dr
    San Jose, CA 95123-5025



MTC-00026483

From: Doug Mason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From what I read on the proposed statement, it is only barely 
lifting a finger to fix the damage to the industry caused by them. 
This really only gives the OEMs the ability to sell a computer with 
a non-MS operating system, and could also dual boot. But the 
developers aren't helped much at all, there are no damages that 
Microsoft have to pay for how they hurt the companies in competition 
or the consumer. And as for opening up the APIs it is only going to 
be distributed by the MSDN, that isn't enough because they could 
just stash the code to the 3/4 or so of the network that is by 
subscription only, which in turn helps Microsoft more than it hurts 
it, because they will have access first, and if the competition 
wants to build applications that will integrate with Windows at the 
level that the MS products do, then it would mean paying them for 
it. As for the Technical Committee, it is too small for one, how 
much of Microsoft's source code, memos, ect.. could actually be read 
through with the attention that they deserve? It should be at least 
ten people, because Microsoft is a very large corporation and I 
would think produce an very large amount of documentation. And with 
the language that weeds out just about every ``expert in 
software design and programming'' that are out there. I think 
that

[[Page 27817]]

this should be changed at least to have microsoft to be forced to 
open their apis with no strings attached, to the entire world to 
view, if not the source code for the windows operating systems 
themselves, so that at least the competition will actually stand a 
chance against them, because with the present situation, and even if 
this settlement goes through, Microsoft will be too large to contend 
with by any single company, most of the competitors either become a 
part of Microsoft, or the companies die as a result of the microsoft 
product being forced upon the consumer. I hope that this settlement 
becomes what the Information Technology industry needs in order to 
regain the momentum that it had lost over the past year, and that 
everyone realizes that most of what is good for microsoft is bad for 
the industry in terms of competition.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas J. Mason
    University Student
    60456 Hamilton @ University of Oregon
    Eugene, Oregon 97403



MTC-00026484

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
7314 Clearmeadow Drive
Spring Hill, FL 34606
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I think the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case should be 
approved and implemented as soon as possible. That would be the best 
thing available now for America's computer technology industry, 
America's economy, and the American public.
    Personally, I think America should not penalize successful 
companies like Microsoft for doing a good business, with good 
products, with tremendously beneficial innovations, with good, 
honest accounting and accountability.
    The settlement will require Microsoft to give up its legal 
rights to its software and business practice in return for not being 
subjected to further costly, disconcerting litigation and the 
possibility of being split up, as AT&T was. For two examples, 
Microsoft will give away to its industry the software codes for the 
internal interfaces to its Windows operating system programs, and it 
will end its legitimate practice of requiring computer manufacturers 
that want to put its Windows operating system on the computer they 
build to put it on all or none, and as an integrated package of 
program or not at all. These changes, and others, will help the 
other companies in the computer industry.
    I appreciate your leadership in settling this case, and ending 
the litigation against Microsoft. Let's get America back to work. 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Clara J. Jones



MTC-00026485

From: JasonY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'll make this short and sweet.
    I disagree with the current form of the MS/JD settlement. I 
believe it amounts to nothing more than a slap on the wrist for MS 
and an insult to consumers. I believe Microsoft's past behavior 
(even under legal restraint) clearly demonstrates that they will 
disregard any but the strongest measures designed to modify their 
behavior. Consumers suffer when an unrepentant and unfair monopolist 
like Microsoft is allowed to continue behavoir that is damaging to 
the marketplace and competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Jason Young



MTC-00026486

From: Herbert Dyke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:16pm
Subject: Re:``Microsoft settlement''
    Sirs:
    It has been brought to my attention that there is great conflict 
regarding the Tunny Act soon to be before you.
    I strongly believe that the proposed settlement offers a 
reasonable compromise that will enhance the ability of seniors and 
all Americans to access the Internet and use innovative software 
products to make their computer experience easier and more 
enjoyable.
    Yours Sincerely,
    Senior Citizen,
    C. Herbert Dyke, Jr.



MTC-00026487

From: Avonia Sullivan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 10:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Avonia Sullivan
416 Construction Drive
Mayfield, KY 42066
January 26, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall 
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more 
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Avounia Sullivan



MTC-00026488

From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/26/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To the Court:
    As an end user (consumer) of computers for the past 20 years, I 
find the proposed settlement by the Justice Department to be 
woefully inadequate. My objections concern both the remedies and the 
lack of consequences if the stipulations of the settlement are 
violated by Microsoft.
    Consumers like myself are slowly but surely being forced to use 
Microsoft products if we want to get ahead at work or use computers 
to make our lives more enjoyable at home. The tactics that Microsoft 
used to put itself in this position were found to be illegal, 
meaning that consumers would likely have had alternatives if 
Microsoft had been an ethical, law abiding corporation. I don't see 
any of the remedies addressing the dearth of consumer choice in PC 
operating system components or PC office productivity software.
    As a consumer, the rise of Netscape in the mid 1990s signified 
an era where the computer desktop became a richer environment to 
work in.
    No longer were computer users relegated to a mediocre Microsoft 
Windows environment as there was a nascent, competitive environment 
whose centerpiece was not the operating system, but rather the web 
browser. As Microsoft illegally choked off Netscape's ability to 
generate revenue, the internet became a stifled environment that now 
requires Microsoft products to function properly. This is serious as 
Microsoft has become the gatekeeper for every activity of every user 
of the internet. Microsoft has not demonstrated the ability to be 
ethical, trustworthy, or law-abiding in this critical role.
    As such, I believe that any remedy of this antitrust suit should 
contain severe enforcement penalties if Microsoft violates any of 
the remedy provisions. Severe entails any penalties that would 
jeopardize Microsoft's future business prospects. This includes 
divestiture of the Windows operating system from other parts of 
Microsoft and/or publishing the source code of the Windows operating 
system. Microsoft has violated court orders in the past (i.e. the 
1995 consent decree) so the inclusion of severe penalties is the 
only way to guarantee the effectiveness of a remedy ordered by your 
court.
    To address the lack of consumer choice that has resulted from 
Microsoft's illegal behavior, I would prefer a remedy that forces 
Microsoft to publicly disclose the file formats of Microsoft Office 
productivity software for a period of several years. Since Microsoft 
file formats have become a de facto standard in

[[Page 27818]]

the business world, this is the only way to allow competitors an 
opportunity to provide alternatives in the workplace, which 
represents Microsoft's most important market.
    It is vital that the court recognizes the need to reintroduce 
competition into the computer software industry.
    Finally, I hope you recognize the stranglehold that Microsoft 
has over the computer industry. Given Microsoft's unrepentant 
behavior of late for wrongdoings it has committed, a weak remedy 
today as signified by the proposed settlement will lead to more 
antitrust violations by Microsoft and yet another Microsoft 
antitrust trial a few years from now. This would be disastrous for 
the consumers of computers in this country.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Richman
    3 Hawthorne Ln
    Bedford, MA 01730
    [email protected]



MTC-00026489

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:16pm
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,
    Charles Jones Jr
    3406 Greenhill Dr
    High Point, NC 27265-1817



MTC-00026490

From: Jason Baietto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an American and a strong believer in Capitalism and free 
markets I have been outraged countless times by the ferociously 
anti-competitive practices of Microsoft. I am deeply saddened that 
the crystal clear analysis of the U.S. government's investigators 
has been clouded over this past year by the sheer financial and 
political influence of this immense mega-corporation.
    No settlement that has been discussed thus far has adequately 
addressed the fundamental issues that continue to allow Microsoft to 
keep a lock-hold on their current monopoly. The issues are their 
proprietary networking protocols and their proprietary file formats.
    The past cannot be undone, and splitting up Microsoft or forcing 
them restructure their main product offerings will result in little 
or no benefit to users and provide little or no assistance to 
competitors.
    However, forcing Microsoft to openly document all of their 
networking protocols and file formats will give competitors the keys 
they need to produce software that can properly integrate and 
compete with the many products offered by Microsoft itself. Only by 
enabling true competition can the process of recovery from the 
damage Microsoft has caused begin.
    Microsoft must not only be required to document their protocols 
and file formats, but they must also be tested for adherence to 
their published standards regularly by a third party. Microsoft must 
incur severe financial penalties for breaking adherence to any 
published standard in order to subvert the ruling and continue their 
aggressive non-competitive practices.
    Please do not let the ending to this chapter of American history 
be written by the corporation that has done the most damage to the 
system of competition that has fueled the industrial and information 
revolutions of our great nation.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Baietto
    [email protected]
    9701 Parkview Avenue
    Boca Raton, Florida 33428



MTC-00026491

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    to the DOJ;
    The settlement with Microsoft is yet another breach of the 
responsibility of the government to apply laws consistently across 
all parties across the United States. How can the DOJ settle a case 
with almost no penalties when nine judges determined that Microsoft 
broke the law. It is not the Justice department's job to decide 
which laws it wants to enforce. You have to enforce them all without 
exception. It's a serious breach of trust when a company can 
knowingly break the law and continue to break the law, because it 
knows there will be no significant penalty. I am 100% in favor of 
competition and free markets, but the boundaries are clearly drawn 
and Microsoft has crossed the line. Please consider meaningful 
remedies. The future of many things depends on this case. Don't 
screw it up.
    respectfully
    donald guarnieri



MTC-00026492

FROM: E. Jerry Bailey TO: MS ATR DATE: 1/26/02 SUBJECT: Settle with 
Microsoft
1900 53rd Street N
Saint Petersburg, FL 33710
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I write to you today to show my support for 
the recent settlement reached between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft. Bill Gates has been an integral part of the building of 
this nation and for that matter the world's computing abilities. He 
has been ingenious in the running of his company. I do not believe 
that the federal government has the right to persecute Microsoft.
    Given these sentiments, I am pleased that there may finally be 
some closure with this issue. Microsoft has been making many 
concessions to ensure that this occurs. For example, Microsoft will 
share information about the internal workings of Windows with its 
competitors, and thus allow them to place their own programs on the 
operating system. Microsoft has even agreed to the formation of a 
technical review board whose sole job will be to ensure compliance 
with the terms of the settlement.
    The settlement offers an opportunity to end this lawsuit and 
returns the country's focus back on business, where it belongs. the 
federal government must end its pursuit of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Edward Bailey



MTC-00026493

From: LARRY BALOK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:24pm
Subject: Settle for Microsoft.
    Settle for Microsoft.



MTC-00026494

From: [email protected]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I don't think the proposed microsoft settlement is good for the 
consumers. Microsoft uses the same tactics that the railroads used 
one hundred or more years ago to form monopolies. This company is 
bad for the US. It should be broken up into a systems company and 
separate application companies. The ``Dos isn't done until 
Lotus won't run'' philosophy is still alive in microsoft. They 
purposely put in bugs to prevent the competator's products from 
working right.
    Thank you for your attention to this request.
    Larry Nestor
    email address [email protected]
    snail mail address: 17692 Beach Blvd. Ste 309
    Huntington Beach CA 92647-6811



MTC-00026495

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a terrible idea that does nothing to 
correct the root of the problem. More strict action needs to be 
taken against Microsoft to ensure that their monopolistic practices 
do not continue. I trust in our government to prevent this from 
occurring. Thank you for your time.
    Cory Rieth



MTC-00026496

From: Joe E Jay

[[Page 27819]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement;
    If settlement would end litigation and prevent any split-ups of 
Microsoft, go for it. The taxpayers and computer consumers are tired 
of this, just as we were when Bell Telephone was keel-hauled and 
summarily split. Please resolve this situation. Just remember that 
we consumers are in the middle of it all, and whatever is executed 
in court, the final cost is eventually passed on to us.
    Best Regards,
    Joe E. Jay



MTC-00026497

From: Tim Spannaus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:27pm
Subject: comment
    I have carefully considered the proposed settlement between 
Microsoft and the Justice Department. reading the full text of the 
proposed settlement and much commentary about it.
    Given that the Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judgment that 
Microsoft violated antitrust law, it is not at all clear how the 
proposed settlement provides a remedy proportionate to the 
violation.
    Microsoft has already demonstrated its willingness to ignore 
remedies based on conduct. The only remedy that adequately addresses 
the violation is one that requires a restructuring of Microsoft. 
Then we can let market forces do their work. Enforcing conduct 
remedies is costly, slow and inefficient compared to structural 
remedies that, once done, manage themselves through market forces.
    Of these, the clearest path to a competitive market lies in 
separating the operating system business from the application 
business. The OS business would find it in their interest to publish 
all the APIs (application program interfaces) to make it easier for 
all to work well in the Windows OS environment. The application 
company would find it in their interest to build programs for a 
variety of platforms to increase (or maintain) market share.
    It is critically important that the OS company not be permitted 
to layer on application software, like media players, photo suites, 
browsers and the like or it will grow into another anti-competitive 
monopoly, driving others from the market. Microsoft continues to add 
application programs to the OS, reducing competition.
    This is not simply a competitive issue. The monoculture of 
Windows computers, running too-tightly integrated mail and 
productivity suites has already proven to be an attractive and hard 
to defend environment for viruses and other malicious computer 
programs. The problem is not just that Microsoft has chsen to ignore 
many security problems, but that the objectives of ease of use and 
security are at odds when the solution is barrier-free passing of 
documents from one program to another. I would be pleased to expand 
on these ideas if necessary.
    Best regards,
    Timothy W Spannaus
    Timothy W. Spannaus, Ph.D.
    Research Fellow, Institute for Learning and Performance 
Improvement
    Senior Lecturer, Instructional Technology
    Wayne State University



MTC-00026498

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Antitrust Division:
    I am a U.S. citizen writing in regard to the Antitrust 
settlement proposal with Microsoft.
    My number one problem with the proposed settlement is that it 
does not sufficiently force Microsoft to open their proprietary file 
formats for competitors to use. Many of these file standards are now 
industry standards only because of Microsoft's anti-competitive 
practices.
    To allow them to remain secret would be to (1) reward Microsoft 
for its illegal activity and (2) allow the company to maintain their 
monopoly.
    Thank you,
    Ron Friedman
    Burbank, CA



MTC-00026499

From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
    Cecil Pulley
    1126 St. Julien Dr.
    Eutawville, SC 29048



MTC-00026500

From: ASA D TUCKER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in 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?
    Let's get bin Laden. Dragging out this legal battle against 
Microsoft further will only benefit a few wealthy competitors, 
lawyers, and special interest big-wigs.
    Not one new product that helps consumers will be brought to the 
marketplace.



MTC-00026501

From: Stephen Berman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:38pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    This proposed settlement is utter travesty.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Berman



MTC-00026502

From: Brian Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    I'm writing this letter to state that I am not in favor of the 
Microsoft settlement. It is no where near harsh enough and doesn't 
go far enough to prevent future abuses by Microsoft.
    Microsoft wants everyone to believe that they aren't the big 
bullies anymore, but their actions speak louder than their words. A 
few months ago (the day Windows XP was released to the public) you 
couldn't access MS NBC with a browser other than Windows Explorer. 
You got a message that stated they wanted to ensure that you got the 
right user experience so you need Windows Explorer to ensure that. 
The next day there was an apology from Microsoft stating that it was 
done in error.
    We all know how Microsoft really feels and they haven't changed 
a bit. Why isn't Java included with Windows XP? Could it be in 
retaliation to Sun Microsystems? You don't have to look to hard to 
see Microsoft's true intentions. Microsoft proposed to donate a 
billion dollars worth of computer equipment, software and services. 
Do you really think they're concerned about the schools or out to 
better the market share where they don't have an overwhelming 
monopoly. I was insulted that they think we are that dumb to not see 
what they are up to. Have they really changed? These are only a 
couple of their actions, but what makes it extremely insulting is 
that they happened while they are in court over the past actions. 
Wouldn't you think they'd be on their best behavior instead of 
flaunting their supreme arrogance and belief that they are above the 
law? From what I've seen so far from the settlement, they have every 
reason to believe that they are above the law and can get away with 
anything they please. We barely gave them a slap on the wrist. I 
know it, they know it and the Department of Justice knows it. For 
some reason we just want this to go away.
    I'm currently living in St. Joseph, Michigan and I very 
disappointed that the State of Michigan is one of the nine states 
that

[[Page 27820]]

settled. I intend to send my Senators and Congressman a letter 
stating my feelings about this.
    For a company that was found guilty to have made many billions 
of dollars illegally, is this really much of a penalty? I will be 
outraged if this ends up being their so called penalty. This only 
attempts to level the playing field from this point forward. I don't 
think it even goes far enough on that account, but no where do I see 
anything to penalize them on the past behavior. You'd think the 
penalty for illegally making billions and billions of dollars and 
forcing many software companies out of business would be equal to 
the crime, or more. Wouldn't you? Do I have an unusual since of 
justice?
    Brian Wood
    1378 Ventnor Ave
    St. Joseph, MI 49085
    [email protected]



MTC-00026503

From: G (038) K Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:42pm
Subject: Judge Motz decision DOJ,
    I favor Mr. Motz's decision and rationale. If Microsoft is to 
place computers in poor schools they should be ordered to place the 
competitor1s product (Apple).
    A real-world punishment of this nature would very likely teach a 
lesson not soon forgotten.
    Gary Snyder



MTC-00026504

From: Jay Palmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    I wish to comment on the proposed settlement of United States vs 
Microsoft.
    I believe Microsoft should be left free to produce and sell 
whatever software they want to. I do not believe they should be 
punished or restricted in any way, for they have done nothing wrong.
    Microsoft has produced many good products that have greatly 
helped its customers. I, along with millions of other Americans, use 
this company's products, such as operating systems, web browsers and 
electronic-mail programs, every day. I am very happy with my 
purchases, and I very much want Microsoft to be free to offer me its 
best efforts for sale in the future.
    Successful companies do not deserve to be throttled by the 
government; rather, they deserve to have their property, which they 
have earned through voluntary trade, protected. The complaints 
against Microsoft have been made by various unsuccessful 
competitors. These companies, along with the government, have no 
right to tell me what software I can buy to run on my computer, nor 
do they have any right to stop Microsoft from selling software that 
consumers everywhere are eager to buy. Microsoft has initiated force 
against nobody. Microsoft, and the people who want to buy their 
products should be left to peacefully pursue their business. Their 
success is not a threat to anybody.
    Jay Palmer
    Bothell, Washington



MTC-00026505

From: Frankie Thomas Robertson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frankie Thomas Robertson
1110 Usher Street
Mayfield, KY 42066
January 26, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Thank you
    F. Thomas Robertson



MTC-00026506

From: Howard L Olivers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is time to put this issue to rest. Greed on the part of state 
governments and trial attorneys are the only reason for continuance. 
Microsoft has made a fair & just settlement. Howard Olivers



MTC-00026509

From: Shirley Nall
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Shirley Nall
Box 442
Salem, IL 62881
January 26, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Thank you
    Shirley Nall



MTC-00026510

From: Rob Pixley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I am writing you to comment on the proposed settlement in the 
anti-trust case against Microsoft Corp as directed by the Tunney 
Act.
    My name is Robert Pixley. I am and have been employed as a 
software developer since 1993. Microsoft's behavior in the 
marketplace has lead us to this juncture. Unfortunately, each time 
the legal system has been involved the results have been either a 
slap on the wrist or outright travesties of justice allowing 
Microsoft to completely continue it's behavior.
    The only sliver of common sense related to this issue was recent 
judge's denial of Microsoft's ``offer'' to supply schools 
with free computers and software as part of a settlement. This 
behavior crystalizes Microsoft's intentions; at each and every turn 
attempt to pervert the process and turn it to it's benefit. The 
offer by RedHat (a Linux distributor) to supply the software for 
computers purchased by Microsoft was a step forward in fixing the 
problems of the current marketplace. Microsoft predictably didn't 
take this offer up as it wouldn't have done them any good. 
Punishment is not meant to help the convicted. Yet Microsoft 
attempts this time and time again.
    Microsoft has argued that the bundling of Internet Explorer (IE) 
into the Windows Operation System cannot be undone. For starters, 
this is completely false. Each and every company makes backups; so 
they could simply ``go back in time'' to a point when the 
code was separate and just ``not'' integrate it. Would 
this be difficult, time consuming, and expensive? Of course, but 
it's not Microsoft well being that should be of concern.

[[Page 27821]]

    Next, Microsoft has said users asked for the bundling. Is there 
proof of this? If so, it has not been disclosed in any forum of 
which I am aware. From knowing many average computer users who use 
myself as a knowledge source of computers, I have yet to have been 
asked to bundle IE into Windows. Let us say for a moment that 
``bundling'' the browser does increase usability and is 
generally a good thing. Then there should be a clear way to include 
``any'' browser to do this work. If it is Microsoft saying 
that only IE can do the work, then that is clearly a reason they 
chose to integrate. And that decision specifically wounded Netscape 
Navigator.
    If a ``browser'' is better at doing certain 
``OS'' functions, than any browser should be able to do 
the job; not just Microsoft's browser.
    Part of the proposed settlement allows OEMs to remove icons to 
access to IE, but IE itself still remains fully functional in the 
system. This doesn't stop Microsoft from in the future using the 
fact that their software still has it's ``illegal'' 
functionality. The functionality needs to be removed by whatever 
means necessary. Microsoft's arguement that Windows needs IE to 
function should be followed up by asking WHAT specifically the IE 
component does. If this can't be detailed then it's clear the 
bundling was done for harmful business reasons, not technical ones. 
If it can be explained what IE does better than Windows, then 
release this list. This way, Netscape or another company could 
create a browser to replace IE completely.
    This nicely dovetails into documentation of the Windows API. 
Having done various programming projects that have entailed this 
area I can speak from experience it requires very thick volumes 
purchased 3rd party to understand what is going on. Nowhere from 
Microsoft is there a list of ``all'' the APIs and their 
specifications and usage. How can any company hope to compete when 
the ``rules'' of the game are held in secrecy by the 
opponent? Microsoft cannot be trusted to do this documentation and 
publication. History has shown they will not disclose anything until 
it is worse for them to not say anything. Just look to the recent 
Hotmail vulnerability; until the disoverer of the ``bug'' 
publically detailed his findings, Microsoft was willing to allow all 
it users of the Hotmail service to be vulnerable. Microsoft's 
response to this was to belittle the finder and say he was wrong for 
bringing up the problem. Microsoft does not like to have it's 
problems exposed; that I don't blame them for. However, when you 
provide the basic tool of modern economics you have different 
standards applied.
    I suppose I could go on at length on any number of other issues 
but I shall close with this. Microsoft has not yet come to see that 
they are at fault here and need to change. This settlement does 
NOTHING to stop them from continuing on their current practices. The 
terms are so archaic and contain so much convoluted 
``legalese'' that enforcing it will only require even more 
expensive litigation to determine whether or not it's been 
accurately followed. Stop this now and find a real settlement that 
brings Microsoft into understanding they are wrong. That will not be 
easy nor pleasant. But the consequences of allowing Microsoft to 
continue it's stranglehold on the computer marketplace are almost 
immeasurable. To understand just how much power Microsoft holds; 
attempt ONE day of work WITHOUT using Windows or any Microsoft 
product.
    I wish you luck,
    Sincerely,
    Robert Pixley
    12322 Oak Creek Lane, Apt 605
    Fairfax, VA 22033



MTC-00026511

From: Scott Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly disagree with the proposed settlement. The proposed 
settlement seems to do little to repair past damages or to prevent 
on-going damage to open and free competition in the computer 
software industry.
    1. MS has eliminated virtually all competition in Operating 
Systems.
    2. Many applications providers have been eliminated.
    I feel this is due to three primary factors.
    1. The size and early popularity of Windows OS.
    2. The HIGHLY anti-competitive nature of previous preloading 
agreements.
    3. The relationship of the operating system software and the 
applications software divisions of MS.
    So long as the MS operating system division and the applications 
software division are under one company, the MS OS division will 
always (continue) to block the efforts of independent application 
software companies to compete against the MS application software 
division.
    Currently the most competitive non-linix based competitor to MS 
Windows is IBM's OS/2 and the related eCS packaging of OS/2. Even 
this OS system is made uncompetitive due to MS's license 
requirements and royalties for software code included in the OS 
abandoned by MS years ago.
    What needs to be done.....
    1. Cut all royalties to MS that would make other products non-
competitive. Perhaps cut the royalties period, since they were put 
in place during the period when MS was practicing it's anti-
competitive policies.
    2. Split the MS OS division from the MS Applications division. 
3. Prohibit the inclusion of most application software with the 
operation system.
    4. Put in place some form of incentive to utilize a non-MS 
operating system such as IBM OS/2, eCS Comm Station or a Linix based 
OS for pre-loaded computers sold.
    5. Force the MS OS division to release ALL information regarding 
the use of all of the OS API's. There must be EQUAL access for all 
vendors including the MS Application division, Independent Software 
providers and other operating system providers.
    Since the damage has already been done to the competition in the 
PC software business and critical mass has already been lost for 
alternatives to the non-MS software solutions, the remedies to the 
damage must be more than just to make the playing field level. There 
must be some form of support to the non-MS business community to 
bring the competition back to the table. The current remedy does not 
make for equal and open competition much less any form of punitive 
punishment for MS past anti-competitive practices. --
    Scott



MTC-00026512

From: william fongeallaz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I suggest that we accept the settlement that was worked out and 
stop trying to spend more money for something that has been taken 
care fo . It is hurting the PUBIC in many ways which includes, stock 
price and value dropping and loosing various mutual funds and 
individuals,costing more to buy software , and destroying the belief 
that you or anyone can start a business and make it grow. We 
arehelping those companies that cannot do it without the unfair help 
of government.
    Thanking you in advance for your consideration.
    Yourstruly,
    William Fongeallaz
    [email protected]



MTC-00026513

From: Linda Kluthe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft case!
    Your Honorable Justice,
    I was most concerned to read that AOL has filed another lawsuit, 
and that the Microsoft lawsuits might go on for a longer period of 
time. I realize Netscape wishes to complain of competition problems, 
but in truth, as a consumer, God help me if I have to use Netscape 
software. I believe it is inferior to Microsoft products, and I want 
the freedom to chose the best product from the best company, and I 
do not want Microsoft to have to spend their profits on lawsuits. I 
want them to continue with research and development, so they can 
continue to provide the consumer with good quality products.
    Developing superior products seems to be their only 
``crime.'' This has gone on long enough.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Kluthe
    351 4th St.
    Scotland, SD 57059



MTC-00026514

From: Lucy Day
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am a third year undergraduate student at the University of 
Chicago and an American

[[Page 27822]]

citizen. I am writing because I am outraged at the mistreatment of a 
truly great producer: Microsoft.
    I love Microsoft's products. I have used Microsoft's operating 
system (Windows), browser (IE), office software (Word, Outlook, 
Excel), business software (Access), and programming software (Visual 
Studio, FrontPage). This is an extremely powerful and useful set of 
tools, and a set of products which far surpasses anything marketed 
by Microsoft's competitors.
    Microsoft is part of my life: my schoolwork, my job, and my 
recreation. I want to be able to choose to keep buying and using 
such products. No one in the computer industry or the government 
should make them have to change what they sell, or share it, or 
charge less for what they produce.
    A successful business like Microsoft is an enormous benefit to 
the consumer, not a threat. Microsoft offers consumers a trade: 
their products for our dollars. No one is required to choose 
Microsoft: each consumer makes his own decision. I do not ask that 
everyone agree with my choice, only that everyone be allowed to 
choose. When people do choose Microsoft, as they have done in 
enormous numbers, Microsoft should be lauded, not blamed.
    The people who blame Microsoft for its success are the ones who 
can't succeed. Microsoft's competitors dragged Microsoft to the 
courts, not Microsoft's customers. To let the worst producers chain 
and persecute the best ones is not only unjust, but disastrous for 
the industry and its consumers. I truly hate to think what the world 
would be like if Microsoft were picked apart by its jealous, 
inferior competitors. Not only would industry standards fail, 
entrepreneurs in any field will lose hope and forsake ambition. 
Penalizing Bill Gates for his innovation and effort is no way to 
encourage future generations of businessmen and inventors. His 
customers have given him his hard-earned rewards--and in a free 
society, he would be allowed to keep them. America is home of the 
self-made man; it is home of the right to life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness; it is the home of the right to the property 
one has earned; it is the home of a government designed to protect 
that property.
    The government should leave Microsoft free to do business with 
its customers and partners.
    Sincerely,
    Lucy Day Werts



MTC-00026515

From: Barbara Wilke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Letting a power such as Microsoft get away time and time again 
will RUIN this industry. Give other corperations (such as Apple, 
Sun, And Linux Boxes) some chance, because MICROSOFT DESTROYED EACH 
ONE. If you alow Microsoft to continue it's practices you can kiss 
Internet freedom and your Credit card numbers goodbye.



MTC-00026516

From: Harold Sullivan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold Sullivan
416 Construction Drive
Mayfield, KY 42066
January 26, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Thank you
    Harold D. Sullivan



MTC-00026517

From: Bob S.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:52pm
Subject: DOJ and others
    Its like Beta and VHS one wins the other is second and if people 
wanted other operating systems they will get and use them. AOL is 
looking for free money to cover their screw-up as well as those 
lawyers looking to profit from a few that just don't like Microsoft. 
We all have choices that we can make without those blood sucking 
lawyers and money loosing .coms looking for a free ride. Thank You 
from 98%
    BobSnow, Aberdeen WA.



MTC-00026518

From: Solomon Akhimienmhona
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Department of Justice,
    I must comment that all allegations made against the Microsoft 
Organization are uncalled for,
    They were the first to start making reasonable operation systems 
and friendly Graphics User interfaces and then they made what I 
would call the best web browsers. Due to the nature of Microsoft's 
versatility it has been able to get through the nooses of many 
Computer hardware, software and networking products and companies, 
as such, creates very little competioin for similar younger 
companies who create programs that can't withstand Microsoft's in 
the Market.
    Furthermore, taking note of the market situation, the public 
buys more Microsoft products than others- remember, the choice of 
purchase still remains in their will, that simple facts demonstrates 
the relative efficacy of microsoft products.
    In addition, logic has it that the longer you stay, the wiser 
and better you become, Microsoft has been around for a long time, as 
long as when the major public started becoming computer freindly as 
such they have had chances to improve thier products and 
services(e.g MSDOS 3.0 to Windows XP amongst others).
    Finally, I feel that microsoft has been one of the best things 
that have happened to the computer industry and they should be let 
alone to produce better products and services along with other IT 
industries in a healthy competitive manner.
    Solomon



MTC-00026519

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
250 Kimbary Drive
Centerville, OH 45458
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I feel that the Microsoft antitrust case has gone on long enough 
and that it is time to resolve this issue permanently. I understand 
that this can happen in the near future.
    This settlement will benefit the economy, the industry, and 
consumers. Under this agreement, Microsoft must share more 
information with other companies, such as: disclosing information 
about certain internal interfaces in Windows and certain software 
codes and books for review by a technical oversight committee 
created by the government. Competing companies can opt to sue 
Microsoft if they feel the company is not complying with this 
agreement.
    Allowing Microsoft to devote its resources to innovative 
practices, rather than litigation, will benefit all of us. I am 
eager to see the settlement, it its current, fair form, implemented 
and enforced. I sincerely hope that the Department of Justice can 
focus on that issue rather than allowing more valuable time to be 
wasted on continued negotiation. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Russell Spruill & Family



MTC-00026520

From: Christopher Hoess
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    Having reviewed the Revised Proposed Final Judgement against 
Microsoft Corporation at , I feel as a consumer and developer of 
software products, and a producer of electronic documents, in the 
areas affected by the anticompetitive practices of the Microsoft 
Corporation, that the Revised Proposed Final Judgement does not 
offer an adequate remedy for the effects of those practices.
    Specificially, the original complaint against the Microsoft 
Corporation was made with regard to their attempts to eliminate 
competition in the web browser market. I feel that the current 
judgement has not sufficiently redressed the damage done to the 
World Wide Web, and furthermore, is not necessarily sufficient to 
prevent the Microsoft Corporation from continuing to monompolize 
that market. My reasons are as follows:
    1) Many guidelines exist for the creation of electronic 
documents to be distributed over the World Wide Web, such as W3C 
Recommendations  and 
``Requests for Comment'' issued by the IETF . In practice, different web browsers tend 
to implement these standards and recommendations in a 
``quirky'' fashion, so that certain parts of these 
standards will be better implemented than others. In a robust 
browser market, content created for the World Wide Web will tend to 
incorporate only the parts of the standards which are supported by 
the majority of browsers. However, with the increasing dominance of 
Internet Explorer in the browser market, the content appearing there 
has shifted towards documents which are ``optimized'' for 
viewing by Internet Explorer. Furthermore, the appareance of some of 
these documents takes advantage of bugs in Internet Explorer, so 
that a correct implementation of the standards and recommendations 
will result in a degraded browsing experience. Because of the 
``poisoning'' of web content created by this near-
monoculture, alternative browsers will find it difficult to gain 
acceptance in the market even if Microsoft is barred from 
retaliating against OEMs shipping them, because current web content 
is essentially written to the undocumented behavior of Internet 
Explorer rather than current standards. I believe that Microsoft 
should be made to provide restitution for its takeover of the 
browser market, one component of which might be directed at this 
issue. To help redress the imbalance between Internet Explorer and 
other browsers due to the state of web content, an additional 
behavioral remedy should be to require Microsoft Middleware to 
respect standard protocols. To wit: Middleware such as Internet 
Explorer, which purports to implement ``standard 
protocols'' (that is, those defined by recognized consortia or 
standards bodies, such as the ISO, ECMA, the IETF, the W3C, and so 
forth), should be forbidden to retain known and corrigible breaches 
of those standards (known in Internet Explorer, for instance, as 
``doctype switching'') in new releases of these products. 
This would simultaneously diminish the unlawfully obtained ability 
of Internet Explorer to render current content on the web in a 
manner superior to current browsers, and increase the relevance of 
the publically available standards for web content.
    2) More importantly, there appears to me to be a loophole in the 
current settlement which Microsoft could attempt to use to avoid 
losing its dominance through Internet Explorer. The Revised Proposed 
Final Judgement specifies that Microsoft is not required to divulge 
information which might ``compromise the security of a 
particular installation''. Currently, one important use of 
Internet Explorer on Windows operating systems is to obtain 
authenticated security patches from the Windows Update website 
 and install them. 
Microsoft could potentially argue that the authentication of patches 
and their automatic installation is protected information under that 
clause of the Revised Proposed Final Judgement, and thus require the 
installation of Internet Explorer to obtain such patches from the 
Internet. Since the timely installation of patches is essential for 
Internet-connected users, this would essentially require OEMs to 
ship Internet Explorer with the operating system. However, such 
security updates make use of a very small portion of the Internet 
Explorer functionality; contrast with the small utility programs 
``apt-get'', ``dselect'', and 
``dpkg'', used by the Debian distribution of the Linux 
operating system. Any Proposed Final Judgement should make 
provisions to avoid Microsoft bundling unnecessary Middleware by 
adding security-related functions to it, much as Internet Explorer 
was bundled into the Windows operating system.
    In conclusion, I feel that the Revised Proposed Final Judgement 
would neither adequately make reparation for the damage inflicted by 
Microsoft's illicit acts, nor would it prevent Microsoft from 
continuing to maintain its current monopoly of the browser market in 
the face of reasonable competition.
    Christopher Hoess



MTC-00026521

From: kenboyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:07pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am in favor of the proposed microsoft settlement. I think the 
proposed settlement is fair for all sides, and most importantly 
gives microsoft a chance to concentrate on software and not legal 
issues that do not affect the end user.
    ken boyer



MTC-00026522

From: Johnny L Haynes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end this farce and let consumers be in charge again.



MTC-00026523

From: George W McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:24pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    PLEASE BRING THIS CASE TO A CLOSE AND LET US GET ON WITH THE 
FUTURE IMPROVEMENT OF OUR ECONOMY. THANKS.



MTC-00026524

From: Helgi Heidar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft vs.DOJ litigation
    I wish to encourage early and prompt settlement of this 
litigation, which in my opinion is only slowing progress in 
technology as well as having adverse effect on the US economy. Let 
us move forward. Helgi
    Heidar MD, Chehalis WA



MTC-00026525

From: Lainie Howard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please don't let Microsoft get away with this feeble settlement. 
Sure, lots of school children would benefit under their proposed 
terms, but where is the penalty Microsoft should also pay to 
directly benefit the many companies they've smashed with their 
unfair practices??
    Lainie Howard
    Quicksilver Communications
    [email protected]
    V: (541) 738-8464
    F: (541) 757-7445
    http://www.quicksilvercomm.com/



MTC-00026526

From: George Bethel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As per the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 
Section 16, aka: the ``Tunny Act'', I would like to render 
a thought in the matter of the United States v. Microsoft.
    Being in this business most of my life, starting at age 11, I 
can say that Judge Jackson's ``Findings of Fact'', dated 5 
November 1999, was a highly accurate document, and I hope that his 
conduct with the press does not taint the validity and accuracy of 
the document. Microsoft has unabashedly bullied, badgered and 
demolished an industry that was ready to exceed years ago.
    Anecdotically, I offer the following as proof. In the time 
following Judge Jackson's ``Conclusions of Law'' based on 
the ``99 Findings of Fact, the entire industry has undergone a 
revival. Sun Microsystems has released the Java2 specification and 
Oracle has made two major releases of its database software. 
Further, IBM, which has long since abandoned its desktop development 
efforts, released a long awaited patch to OS/2, an advanced 
Operating System that could have won out against Windows in fair 
market situation. IBM has also started a sweeping change in adapting 
Linux to run on their entire product line; a change that could not 
have been thought of had IBM feared Microsoft retaliating for 
setting a non-Windows standard.
    Apple Computer Inc., who has seen it's market decimated by a 
product that borrowed liberally from Apple's own research, has 
released no less then 5 major revisions of its MacOS, a company that 
before then, released revisions every 18 months. Apple Computer

[[Page 27824]]

Inc. then stopped its releases when Windows 95 was released. While 
some of the releases were stopped up by its very public internal 
problems, most of Apple's releases were allowed out because 
``it was safe to do so''. Microsoft will continue to copy 
the MacOS, but with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law over 
its head, Microsoft could no longer stop companies from developing 
for MacOS, fearing the ``Oppressive Thumb'', as Judge 
Jackson called it.
    The above listed were the lucky companies; others have not fared 
so well. As I write this note (with apologies in advance for it's 
length), Be Inc., had its last assets auctioned off. In retrospect, 
Be never had a chance; it is not possible to create a new Operating 
System in a computing world dominated by a company and product, as 
opposed to being dominated by technology, as it was before Microsoft 
came into the monopoly position it currently enjoys. Another 
casualty was Silicon Graphics Inc., which just signed over the bulk 
of its technology patents covering three dimensional rendering to 
Microsoft. The cost to Microsoft was $62.5 million; the cost to SGI 
was the very reason for its existence in the computer business. 
Unless SGI has something up it's sleeve, this company will go away. 
The postmortem of SGI will have Microsoft's marks all over it. The 
list can go on, and include some unlikely ``allies'' of 
Windows products such as Compaq, Acer and Hewlett Packard, but in 
the interest of brevity, I will leave this be.
    In Microsoft's defense, it is impossible to assign a direct 
``cause and effect'' method to most of the company's 
actions and the resulting damage to the computer industry. They were 
more ``enablers'' that triggered a chain of events that 
stopped the industry in its tracks for four years and counting. The 
industry theoretically could have embraced ``thin client'' 
computing, pushed by Sun and Netscape Communications (see Finding of 
Fact, page 10, page 34), and embraced by Apple and IBM; but it 
didn't. Apple could have competed differently and slowed, or even 
stopped, Microsoft in the marketplace; or even in the courtroom, had 
they argued things differently.
    But things that can be proved in a courtroom as ``Cause and 
Effect'' should be enforced to the full extent of the law, in 
the same manner that a known murderer and bootlegger can be 
convicted of Income Tax Evasion.
    Microsoft, in no uncertain terms, demolished an industry for its 
own purposes. However, this brings up our, and your, largest 
problem: the damage is done. Nothing the court imposes can bring 
back the companies that died in the process of moving the industry 
forward. Nothing the court does can uproot the millions of people 
who have tied their future to Windows, and will resist anything 
other than their familiar product. Nothing, including the complete 
and utter destruction of the Microsoft Operating System and 
supporting company, can repair the damage done to the industry. The 
court can't even ensure that Microsoft won't find a new way to harm 
the industry.
    At most, all the court can do is unlock the shackles imposed on 
it by Microsoft. And hope that is enough.
    Respectfully,
    George S. Bethel
    CC:Bill Douthett,Alex Nguyen,Arthur Wu



MTC-00026527

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Correction
    Please forgive the inaccuracies of my previous email that was 
sent last night. This is a corrected version of my position on the 
settlement.
    Let me begin by saying that I completely support the settlement 
and want this entire case brough to completion. Below are some 
thoughts that came to mind while reading the case against Microsoft.
    First of all, the whole browser issue is a complete waste of 
time for every party involved, and it makes me sick to my stomach to 
think of how much money my government has wasted chasing this 
irrelevant case. As a technology consultant who has vast experience 
in many software platforms, the issue of the browser is ridiculous 
because any programmer worth their weight in beans could easily 
program their own browser to any operating system. Netscape had a 
commanding lead in browser share, which was wasted away by their own 
business policies.
    I used to have a lot of respect for Netscape when I was 
consulting and building applications on their on their platform, but 
then I saw how their pricing and arrogance stifled innovation in the 
functionality and integration capabilities of their version of the 
browser. Microsoft made it much easier to incorporate more 
functionality and extend the web experience for their users.
    This was also true with Java. It was great when it first came 
out, as the promise of the technology was the sweetest thing to hit 
the industry in a long time. By keeping such a tight hold on java, 
Sun has not only missed opportunity to advance the language, but 
they have kept many companies from innovating the language to 
provide a feature set that meets the needs of enterprise customers. 
When Microsoft added to java, they were only meeting the needs of 
their customers by filling the void in functionality that Sun 
refused to provide. Other companies have done the same, IBM, BEA, 
and others to the point that it takes a ``port'' of the 
code from one operating system to the next. This is completely 
opposite of what the early promise of java was ``write once, 
run anywhere''. To meet the needs of my business customers, we 
always have to find a vendor specific java such as IBM so that we 
can get the features out of the language that make it usable. If the 
language was submitted as a standard, these enhancement's would have 
been made to the language. Instead, Sun has kept the royaltees on 
all java licensing and has caused the rest of the industry to 
innovate around their stubbornness. Needless to say, I can better 
meet the needs of my customers by using another vendors 
``flavor'' of java versus the straight Sun implementation.
    The thing that bothers me the most about this case is that most 
of the ``facts'' (using the term loosely since I 
completely disagree with the previous findings of ``fact'' 
by the biased judge Jackson) brought to the government's legal team 
have come from Microsoft competitors, the ones who have the most to 
gain by hurting Microsoft. I have explained my thoughts on Sun, java 
and Netscape, and they are just a sampling of why this case should 
have never made it to the courts in the first place. To blanket this 
whole case and say that Microsoft is not allowing the industry to 
innovate is completely ridiculous. Microsoft should be punished for 
specific actions that have violated the law, and only for those 
specific actions. Given the amount of venture capital money that was 
fed into the economy over the last 10 years, there was plenty of 
opportunity for any company to come to market with new and 
compelling products. In regards to the settlement, it appears that 
both sides have made significant concessions to see this to an end. 
Ever since the DOJ brought this case against Microsoft, the economy 
has been in a tailspin. It appears that as long as this case is 
active in the courts, the chains of ``waiting to see what 
happens to Microsoft'' will remain, and the economy will remain 
stale. This tailspin has rippled into other industries and if we are 
ever to start recovering from this recession, this case needs to be 
completely settled and resolved.
    Please bring this case to an end and let our industry regulate 
itself. If people are seeing unethical or extremely competitive 
behavior, they can make their own decisions on who to support with 
their IT dollars. If companies are explicitly breaking the law, 
punish them for those specific acts and do not bring the rest of the 
industry down (and in this case, the whole economy) with them.
    Thank you,
    Michael Beatty
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026528

From: Joon Hong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I'd like to borrow this moment to voice my comments on the 
Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    It is my belief and assessment that the settlement which is 
currently being proposed is totally against of the American Public's 
interest, as Microsoft is clearly found to be monopoly in the 
findings of fact in the trial. Using a series of questionable 
business/engineering practices to gain software market share has put 
Microsoft at such unreachable place that the current proposed 
settlement is not going to be effective at all to bring it down to 
fair competing level.
    It is ironic that this email is being written in hotmail which 
was ``purchased'' by Microsoft..
    thank you,
    J. Hong
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

[[Page 27825]]

Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to voice my beliefs about the November 2001 
proposed settlement reached between Microsoft and the government. 
First, the Department of Justice never should have sued Microsoft. 
It was completely wrong. Microsoft should not be forced to litigate 
its business practices beyond what has already transpired. As a 
Christian, I believe that the government was strictly motivated by 
greed.
    The settlement constitutes a great opportunity for this country, 
putting disputes to rest, and allowing Microsoft to progress through 
continued innovation. Microsoft has agreed to have a government 
appointed watchdog monitor their business practices. If Microsoft 
breaks any term of their settlement, they will be held responsible 
for their actions. This is good enough for me to see Microsoft 
agreeing to be monitored.
    The government has moved away from these values as I see it, 
becoming much bigger than itself, not by the people, or for the 
people, but by those who run the people, who own the people. As a 
person who lives by the good word, the people are speaking, I am one 
voice crying out in the wilderness, ``Let Microsoft continue 
onward, support this settlement without any further punishment or 
actions against them.'' This is in the best interest of 
Microsoft, the government, and the economy and for this nation.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Cartwright



MTC-00026428--0002



MTC-00026529

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:34pm
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,
    andy w. lindon
    3238 moyer dr.
    franklin, OH 45005-4837



MTC-00026530

From: J. Eric Humphreys
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen and Ladies,
    I have read the revised proposed Final Settlement for the 
antitrust case between the U. S. Government and Microsoft. I agree 
that Microsoft is guilty of monopolistic practices but I doubt that 
the Settlement will do anything to punish Microsoft for its past 
practices or prevent Microsoft from employing similar practices in 
the future.
    I wish to draw your attention to the the criteria listed for 
membership on the Technical Committee which is supposed to monitor 
and enforce this agreement. I believe that, as worded, it will be 
extremely difficult to obtain qualified people to serve on this 
Committee. Specifically: The requirement that the members must 
forego employment by either Microsoft or its competitors for two 
years after such service (IV.B.2.c) is likely to discourage many 
qualified people from membership on the Committee. People who are 
experts in software design and development (IV.b.2) know that 
employment in this field can change suddenly. A limit of six months 
after service would be more reasonable.
    There appears to be no definition of ``competitor'' 
anywhere in the document. This would make it easy for Microsoft to 
object to any proposed member for the Committee that Microsoft 
deemed detrimental to its business. Some clear definition of the 
term, or at least a set of guidelines which can be used to determine 
whether a given business is or is not a competitor, needs to be 
established.
    The requirement that the members of the Committee by proposed 
within seven days of entry of the final Judgement (IV.B.3) requires 
that the plaintiffs and Microsoft already be in discussions with 
prospective members. It is unrealistic to expect qualified people to 
receive and accept membership on such a Committee when the pay scale 
has yet to be established (IV.B.6.b). When a case has dragged on 
this long why quibble over a few days? One or two months might be a 
more reasonable period for selection.
    I hope that you find these comments useful. As background 
information: I am a Senior Consultant for Sybase, Inc. I have been a 
software developer for twenty years, mostly as a contractor to the 
Department of Defense. Most of my work for the past four years has 
been under the Windows NT operating system. At home I use Macintosh 
computers, and have for over sixteen years.
    I may be reached at:
    6625 Windsor Ct.
    Columbia, MD 21044
    410-730-8533
    E-mail:
    [email protected] (will be 
[email protected] after 28 February 2002)
    [email protected]
    Sincerely,
    J. Eric Humphreys



MTC-00026531

From: Trance Kuja
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    Dear US Department of Justice,
    On the Microsoft Antitrust case, many issues concern us. As part 
of the public, we have views which we wish to be expressed during 
Microsoft's trial. The two main issues are Microsoft's bundling deal 
and the settlement with the states.
    Microsoft should be able to have the states receive the money 
and forget the case. It is fair only if the money given is able to 
compensate for any damages/losses due to Microsoft. As John D. 
Rockefeller said during the Preliminary Report on Trusts and 
Industrial Combinations there are many advantages to trusts and 
other forms of ?industrial combinations.? He lists a few of the most 
significant advantages as ?extension of limits of business, increase 
of number of persons interested in the business, and power to give 
the public improved products at less prices and still make profit 
for stockholders.? Additionally, he also stated that ?combination is 
necessary and its abuses can be minimized,? meaning that there are 
minimal disadvantages which, in fact, are so trivial that they 
should not be any concern.
    The major cause of the trial is Microsoft's action of ?bundling? 
software. Bundling software is a result of combining products 
together and having them sold without separation. Thus, people would 
not spend the money to buy an additional program when they already 
have a substitute. This has caused the Netscape/Microsoft Trial. 
This trial has been caused after a complete reversal in Internet 
Browser Usage. Around 1995 when Netscape launched its first browser, 
about 80% of the ?web surfers? used their software. Additionally, 
Microsoft had virtually none. Now, there is a complete reversal in 
which only about 10% of the Internet browsers used are not 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Netscape is part of that 10%, and 
bundling causes this whole dilemma. In addition, Microsoft's 
bundling its web browser with its operating system is absolutely 
fine. This is because if Netscape had an OS, it could also bundle, 
but it chooses not to. Thus, the representatives of the public 
should allow Microsoft to pay the states. In the case with Netscape, 
the courts should not punish Microsoft since Netscape could do 
everything Microsoft has done.



MTC-00026532

From: Catherine Hanneken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is time to end this costly damaging litagation at Taxpayers 
expense It only benefits a few wealthy competitors, LAWYERS always 
there to spend our money for their business and special interests.
    Lets get on with the situations that are more important within 
our higher offices.
    Catherine Hanneken
    4 Spencer Lane
    Watchung, NJ 07069



MTC-00026533

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:45pm
Subject: Sir;
    Sir;
    I FIND IT INCONCEIVABLE THAT A CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY'S GOVERNMENT 
AGENCY WOULD INTERFERE WITH A

[[Page 27826]]

COMPANY THAT GENERATED A INDUSTRIAL BOOM, AND ALLOW THE PUBLIC 
SCHOOL SYSTEM, A FAILURE, TO REMAIN A MONOPOLY WITH INCREASED 
FUNDING WITH TAXPAYERS MONEY.
    SINCERLY,
    Eva s. ates



MTC-00026534

From: David M. Reed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For the past two years I have compared Microsoft to someone who 
appears in court for breaking the speed limit--doing 75 MPH in 
a 65 MPH zone. One of their primary arguments is that things have 
changed--that stretch of road now has signs posted for 75 
MPH-- and therefore they can not be guilty of breaking the law. 
In fact, they believe the limit may soon be 85 MPH in that area, so 
their actions were well within the law!
    In other words, they don't believe the law applies to them. And 
if it did, things are changing ``so fast'' that it is 
irrelevant--for the ``natural order of things'' is 
such that they should not be found guilty of violating a 65 MPH law 
since whatever they might have done wrong then doesn't apply today 
or tomorrow. I have been involved with support of Microsoft products 
for over 15 years now. When Microsoft Windows 3.1 was appearing, I 
learned of Microsoft practices which I considered unethical. That 
behaviour continued (and to a great extent, got much worse over the 
years), but I did not know that much of it was actually illegal 
until I read the Department of Justice document against Microsoft in 
1999. In particular, I quickly and clearly understood that what 
might be unethical for a new or small company could become illegal 
when done by a company which has a monopoly.
    Having a job which involves supporting various operating systems 
and applications, I understood very clearly a number of facts which 
Microsoft, in their arrogance, felt that a judge could never 
understand and rule on. I was shocked by Microsoft childish attempts 
to claim they did not have a monopoly with their Operating Systems! 
I understood very clearly that a browser is an application 
(something the user directly interacts with) that was NOT a part of 
the OS, no matter what Microsoft did to ``integrate'' 
it--for if it were really a ``part of the OS'', then 
you could NOT run it on other operating systems, such as the 
MacIntosh or various Unix systems. Thus, to have included a major 
application ``for free'' (or ``bundled'') with 
the OS for which they have a monopoly is clearly using one monopoly 
to achieve another--at the clear expense of competitive 
products (and thus to the detriment of consumer choice, usability, 
etc.).
    I was thrilled the court found Microsoft clearly guilty of these 
violations of law. But then, to my great dismay, they were to 
negotiate a ``settlement''. When was a murder, a car 
thief, or anyone else guilty of violating a serious crime against 
the community, ever allowed to ``negotiate'' or given any 
opportunity to propose how they should be punished!
    I am angered by the extremely weak ``settlement'' the 
DOJ has proposed. I find it only slightly might limit some part of 
Microsoft's future actions. (But I doubt that, as Microsoft's 
brilliant minds have already demonstrated they will come up with 
some way to circumvent the law and rulings, such as their 
``integrating'' the browser into the OS so that it could 
not be considered a separate application, and thus could not be 
``bundled''. In other words, they moved to make it appear 
they could not be guilty of using one monopoly --the OS-- 
to obtain another monopoly --with browsers-- for they 
could then claim the browser was not ``separate'', and 
being ``part of the OS'', they could not have violated any 
law!) And there is nothing I can find that actually might be 
considered a --punishment-- of Microsoft for having broken 
the law! They continue to flagrantly break the very same laws even 
now! (After all, if there is seemingly no punishment, and they can 
earn billions of dollars per month doing so, then they can certainly 
afford millions of dollars per month to tell the U.S. government 
that the laws do not apply to them.)
    What they did to Netscape and the browser market was NOT the 
first time they have utilized their monopoly position to extinguish 
a competitor--they had done it many times before. Their recent 
Windows XP release clearly shows they are continuing to do that. 
With that, the cost of the OS continues to stay the same (or 
increase), in comparison to the PC hardware market, where choice 
abounds and every couple of years you can buy more than twice the 
system for less.
    Name virtually any computer hardware component, and you will 
find a multitude of competitors, offering increased performance and 
features, and continually declining prices. That is NOT happening in 
the OS market.
    The browser competition made it hopeful that the choice of OS 
would become very unimportant. Microsoft has worked hard to make it 
so that there are almost no other viable browser competitors. (And 
since one comes free with the OS which is sufficiently capable, why 
would anyone consider getting an alternative--whether it cost 
money or was free.) Worse, Microsoft continues to do things to make 
it so that users will only want to use their browser, by 
implementing ``non-standard'' features, or by NOT 
implementing standard features. Or even when they set the defaults 
for web page creation using their FrontPage program which are set to 
function best (or even only) on a PC (preferably with their Internet 
Explorer).
    Again, their tactics are more than simple ``free market 
competition''. And there are laws against it (even if they or 
others don't think those laws should apply). And they have been 
found guilty of violating those laws. Now it is up to the court to 
do two very crucial things:
    1) Assure Microsoft is SEVERELY PUNISHED for having flagrantly 
violated the law (including ``thumbing their noses at the 
court'', plus their continuing violation, which they don't 
believe is ``wrong'').
    2) Structure a ``remedy'' that will help prevent (or 
at least seriously discourage) Microsoft from doing more of the same 
--and similar-- violations.
    In the early 1990's, not knowing they were actually violating 
laws, I strongly proposed to many people that a kind of 
``Chinese wall'' be created in Microsoft so that the OS 
groups are nearly fully isolated from the application groups. I have 
been convinced for years that Microsoft should be literally broken 
up into separate companies.
    The only change in my belief is that now instead of two 
companies, they should now be broken up into at least three: OS, 
applications, and media/internet.
    I firmly believe that is best for the consumers, and for the 
court system. (Overseeing Microsoft is neither good for the company 
nor the courts nor the consumers. So long as Microsoft remains one 
company with so many parts, and such a background of behaviour, they 
will continue trying to circumvent the law, ending back in court a 
lot.) If Microsoft were a ``person'', the only way to 
prevent them from their habitual criminal activity would be to 
``lock them in prison'', where they would be less capable 
of harming the consumer! (And as punishment for their crimes, 
together with payment of fines and possibly confiscating the 
property they used in, and for, committing their crimes.) It seems 
rather harsh, and may even jeopardize some of my career (that has 
been spent so extensively in supporting Microsoft products). But I 
know that consumers have been hurt, I know that Microsoft has broken 
the law, I know that Microsoft does not want to obey the law (they 
truly believe it does not apply to them!), and that for justice to 
be done, Microsoft must be punished, and prevented from further 
crimes against consumers and the market. In advance I thank those 
involved who will NOT consider these issues politically, nor simply 
approach it as allowing Microsoft to ``buy their freedom to 
violate the law''. Please see that justice is done. (And since 
they show not even a semblance of guilt or repentance, mercy does 
not need to be considered!)
    David M. Reed [email protected]
    Hm 360-653-8673 Wk 425-335-2460



MTC-00026536

From: Andrew McKenzie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Respectfully, I see a few problems with the Proposed Final 
Judgement in the Microsoft Antitrust Case:
    The Proposed Final Judgement doesn't take into account 
Windows-compatible competing operating systems;
    The Proposed Final Judgement Contains Misleading and Overly 
Narrow Definitions and Provisions;
    The Proposed Final Judgement Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive 
License Terms currently used by Microsoft;
    The Proposed Final Judgement Fails to Prohibit Intentional 
Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft;
    The Proposed Final Judgement Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive 
Practices Towards OEMs;
    The Proposed Final Judgement as currently written appears to 
lack an effective enforcement mechanism.

[[Page 27827]]

    Thank you,
    Andrew J. McKenzie



MTC-00026537

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:44pm
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,
    Myrna M Barrett
    P O Box 660
    Linden, TX 75563-0660



MTC-00026538

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:49pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I strongly recommend that the litigation against Microsoft be 
dropped it has been well served and the time to end this costly and 
damaging litigation has come.
    The Settlement will certainly be in the ``publics best 
interests.'' Consumer interests has been well served and it is 
time to STOP. So please settle it NOW.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely
    Orvella Batchelder



MTC-00026539

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:46pm
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,
    Ron Pillar
    2001 Ruffs Mill Rd.
    Belair, MD 21015



MTC-00026540

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:49pm
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,
    David Wallace
    Box 22
    Springdale, WA 99173-0022



MTC-00026541

From: lmath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough, this is a just and more than fair settlement 
for a company that gave us software and charged us nothing for it! 
Let the whiner's shut up and take the profits they didn't deserve!
    Please we as a country are at war. Enron and thousands of its 
employee's are bankrupt. Why continue a suit against a company that 
hurt no one instead of dealing with real issues like war and 
bankruptcy?
    Settle this suit!
    Lynette Matheson



MTC-00026542

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:52pm
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,
    James Hohn
    PO Box 237
    Jefferson City, MT 59638



MTC-00026542--0001



MTC-00026543

From: Christopher A. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft vs U.S.
    The only way to stop Microsoft from abusing its monopoly power 
is to take its monopoly away. The company needs to be split into 
several entities with their own Operating Systems divisions so that 
they would have to compete against each other for market share. The 
operating system should not be allowed to bundle software such as 
Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player. This should be left up to 
the computer manufacturers to add value to their systems.
    This would further benefit consumers in allowing more 
competition and bringing down prices even lower than they are now.
    In addition to splitting up the company, Microsoft needs to pay 
damages to companies that were harmed by Microsoft's illegal 
practices. Netscape, Corel and Apple Computer are just a few of that 
were severely harmed.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher A. Smith
    Docs4Macs
    Doctor of MacIntology
    Phone: (804) 839-5422
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00026544

From: J J Simas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been following Microsoft's business methods for some 
time. And as a graduate of both Computer Science and Philosophy, I 
have excellent qualifications for opining on this settlement. I'll 
leave the arguments and details up to someone who is more 
knowledgeable of law but what needs to happen is the following.
    First let me state what is true:
    Software and hardware exist at certain levels.
    The lowest level is hardware.
    Above that are hardware drivers.
    Above that is the operating system.
    Above that are the applications.
    Above the applications are more applications...
    That is, each higher level, makes use the lower level.
    Then what needs to happen:
    What needs to happen is to require any company that makes 
products at more than

[[Page 27828]]

one adjacent level to publicly document their application 
programming interface. This isn't a drain on resources for them 
because if they are developing at both levels, then they have 
already produced the documentation. This ensures that competition 
can exist even in the presence of a monopoly.
    File formats must also be open not only to ensure competition 
(which will ensure the best products survive which helps ensure that 
we survive) but also so that our data isn't taken away from us. If 
our data is in a file with a proprietary format, and if the software 
publisher isn't the only person knowledgeable of that format, then 
that person can demand whatever price so that we can access our data 
and that publisher being the only person who knows the format can 
disallow us from transferring our data to any other format.
    Jason
    J J Simas
    BS in CSci and Philo (Sep 2001)
    http://chart2d.sourceforge.net/jjsimas



MTC-00026545

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:03am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Recommend further litigation against Microsoft in the interests 
of fair competition and true capitalistic economics :
    1. Microsoft should be fined severely for attempting to develop 
a monopoly in software, as proven in court and so adjudged.
    2. Microsoft should have the Operating System development 
separate from the applications development, by fair application of 
anti-trust law. Two separate entities, in other words.
    3. Microsoft's OS code should be made available to all software 
developers to allow competitive applications development.
    Glen L. Keener
    14027 Spring Lake Road
    Minnetonka, MN



MTC-00026546

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:01am
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,
    Jim Mundy
    307 Westwood Lane
    Madison, IN 47250-2973



MTC-00026547

From: Michael Deming
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement will do nothing more than give Microsoft inroads 
to one of the few markets that it does not yet monopolize. If the 
DOJ wants to help education with settlement thats fine and good, but 
do it by making Microsoft pay into a fund that allows schools to 
purchase the software and hardware of its choice. The education 
market is one of the few markets that competitors have had some 
success competing with Microsoft. If this settlement is not modified 
the education market could see the same competition squashing 
Microsoft that other markets have seen, and this time with the 
Governments help.
    In general, I do not think that this settlement is harsh enough. 
Even if the settlement is revised as I mentioned above it is only a 
small slap on the hand, and will not make Microsoft change its 
competition squashing ways. Microsoft will only work harder to 
better disguise it. It is unfortunate that some originally very good 
software programs have been almost completely eliminated by 
Microsoft. Programs like Netscape and WordPerfect were once good 
competitors to Microsoft but due to Microsoft's ways they have 
become minor players in their areas with the only major player being 
Microsoft. This is very unfortunate, because if these programs, 
among others, were the competitors they once were, we would see more 
innovation and better products. This can also be said when it comes 
to operating systems.
    In closing, I know that in the computer industry, history has 
proven that the best product usually doesn't gain market share. The 
program that is the most ``compatible'' (or marketed as 
such, which is usually the case) wins the market share points. I 
know that this is unlikely to change in the near future if ever, but 
it would be nice to see the better product have enough market share 
to be able to stay competitive and stimulate innovation and better 
products. For the most part, Microsoft has not allowed this to 
happen if they have a competing product.
    Thank you.



MTC-00026548

From: Thomas Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The stipulations against non-profit organizations that are 
included in Section III (J) and (D) are appalling. Microsoft's main 
competition is from open sourced, free software that is produced by 
non-profits. These articles strengthen the monopoly that Microsoft 
holds. Please don1t strengthen Microsoft.
    Thomas Cook aka EEvil Tom
    [email protected]



MTC-00026549

From: Beverly Lincoln
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This e-mail is sent in support of the proposed settlement 
agreement wherein Microsoft will donate more than $l. billion in 
cash, training and software to help make computer technology and 
software more accessible to public schools serving nearly 7 million 
of America's most disadvantaged children. I believe this is a fair 
and reasonable solution that will benefit consumers, the high-tech 
industry and the overall U.S. economy.
    As a business manager, I have gone through many years of 
utiliztion of computer hardware and software, as well as purchased 
computer systems for personal use. I have used both browsers and 
judge them on their own merits. I admire Microsoft for their 
innovation to develop usable, practical, software systems. I believe 
that in the current situation of the economy, and our need for the 
best in high technologies, time and money spent should be in the 
areas of innovation, development, and production by all companies, 
rather than spending time and money for continuing court expenses 
and politics. Microsoft's competitors should spend their time and 
money on innovation in producing software products that stand on 
their own merit.
    Thank you for this opportunity to submit my comments on this 
very important issue.



MTC-00026550

From: B. Forster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:14pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the terms of the settlement are more than adequate and 
the Microsoft competitors and the nine dissenting Attorney Generals 
should back off. We need to get the economy moving again. The 
Country is in dire need of stimulation, innovation and not 
LITIGATION. Dragging this out is costly and counter productive.
    A concerned fellow American



MTC-00026551

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the acceptance of the Microsoft antitrust settlement that 
is awaiting final adoption. From what I read in the press it meets 
the intent of the court of appeals. In my opinion, dragging this out 
any longer at the insistence of Microsoft's competitors and the 
renegade states is good for lawyers, but not good for the high tech 
industry, or the states, as a whole. I believe the faster this case 
is settled the better.
    I am not a Microsoft employee or investor so my opinion is not 
based on financial gain.
    Thank you for considering my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Jones



MTC-00026552

From: Rebecca E Frankel
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 27829]]

Date: 1/27/02 12:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    CC:
    [email protected]@inetgw
    

MTC-00026552--0001
    Rebecca Frankel
    MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
    Room 435, 200 Technology Square
    Cambridge, MA
    [email protected]
    Response to the Proposed Settlement of the Microsoft Case:
    I am writing because I am unhappy about the proposed settlement 
of the Microsoft antitrust trial.
    I do not wish to try to enumerate the flaws of the settlement. I 
think other people have done a good job of that; for instance, I 
approved of Daniel Kegel's petition and signed it. In addition, I 
feel uncomfortable saying anything that might imply that I know 
better than the judge how to decide issues of law or apply them to a 
remedy. I am a software engineer; I don't know anything about law. 
The only special understanding I have is of technology.
    However, the problem of the ``understanding of 
technology'' is an issue in this case. There has been much 
griping in technology circles that this settlement shows how 
thoroughly the legal system doesn't ``get'' technological 
issues. But most of this griping is just that griping. You legal 
people must wonder about us: if there really is something you don't 
``get,'' why can't we explain to you what it is? For 
instance, recently an engineer complained to Lawrence Lessig:
    ``Members of the judiciary are largely unqualified to 
comment or judge upon issues of a technical nature, simply because 
their careers do not incorporate a great deal of technical 
knowledge, and also because they have not sought it ... My concern 
is that...we won't have a lot of judges with a high awareness of the 
intricacies involved for several years. However, the judges 
presently sitting are essentially creating a body of law to govern 
what they do not understand.''
    In reply, Lessig shot back a challenge to us:
    ``There was a time when I thought that lawyers wouldn't do 
too much damage... All that has changed now ... This is, in part, 
because courts don't understand the technology. But I don't think 
it's because courts don't know how to code. I think the problem is 
that courts don't see the connection between certain kinds of 
technology and legal values. And this is because we've not done a 
good job in demonstrating the values built into the original 
architecture of cyberspace: That the Internet embraced a set of 
values of freedom...that those values produced a world of innovation 
that otherwise would not have existed. If courts could be made to 
see this, then we could connect this struggle to ideals they 
understand. Sometimes when I read Slashdot debates, I wonder whether 
you guys get this connection either... And this leads me to the 
greatest pessimism: If you guys don't get the importance of neutral 
and open platforms to innovation and creativity; if you get bogged 
down in 20th century debates about libertarianism and property 
rights; if you can't see how the .commons was critical to the .com 
revolution, then what do [you] expect from judges?
    You guys ... built an architecture of value. Until you can begin 
to talk about those values, and translate them for others, courts 
and policy makers generally will never get it. Lessig is basically 
telling us we are being a bunch of inarticulate crybabies. He is 
right. If we want to claim the right to complain that courts do not 
understand us, we need to provide a ``translation of our 
values'' in terms that a layman can understand.
    My goal in this letter is to attempt to provide such a 
translation, and then use it to make an analysis of the nature of 
the public interest in the settlement of the Microsoft trial. I am 
deeply involved with the society that created the values to which 
Lessig refers. I have spent a large part of the last eight years at 
the MIT Lab for Computer Science--a place whose extraordinary 
qualities were better characterized by another student from my 
floor:
    [I]t is tough for most people to imagine a building where a 
young nerd can walk out of his office on the 4th floor, argue with 
the founder of the free software movement (Richard Stallman), annoy 
the authors of the best computer science book ever written (Abelson 
and Sussman), walk up one floor to run a few ideas past Dave Clark, 
Chief Protocol Architect for the Internet from 1981-1989, and 
walk down two floors to talk to Tim Berners-Lee, developer of the 
World Wide Web.
    I know all these people; many of them feel like family to me. I 
know what they care about, what they hope for, what they dream 
about, what they fight for, and what they fear. I never imagined 
that, as an MIT engineer, so much of what I would struggle with 
would not be the ``intricacies involved'' in the practice 
of engineering, but instead the problems of defining and 
communicating the value that technology can and can't provide to 
society. The engineers here are in a constant battle to prevent 
society from destroying the value they try to build for it: this 
struggle takes up so much of their energy that it is hard to think 
of what they do as just engineering anymore. I do not like this: I 
want to simply be an engineer. I wish that you, the court, could 
take from us the job of defining and communicating values, so we 
could go back to being ordinary engineers. It is much more natural 
for you to take on this role, than it is for us to have it. But in 
order for you to do that, first we would have to explain these 
values to you.
    I am unhappy with the proposed settlement because it shows how 
deeply the courts do not understand the value that engineers here 
are trying to build. I could pick on the specifics of the settlement 
terms ad infinitum, but I feel it would be a pointless exercise, 
because only a basic failure of understanding of the nature of the 
public interest could make such a flawed settlement seem acceptable 
in the first place. But if I claim that there is a basic failure of 
understanding, that raises a question: ``What exactly is it 
that I think government officials don't understand?'' It is 
rather shocking that we have failed to effectively answer this 
question. We have told you many things: long stories of power 
struggles in the browser market, mind-bendingly technical analysis 
of the proper design of network protocols, plenty of satirical 
accounts of Microsoft's shady shenanigans, and many other similar 
things. But we never have given a simple answer to the simple 
question ``What is the nature of the public interest in all 
these matters?'' It is the goal of this letter to try to fill 
this gap. I will make my argument in a context so ordinary that it 
may well seem childish, but please bear with me: in my silly 
example, I think I can capture the essential issues at stake and 
then tie them back to our complex and confusing real situation.
    So here is my simple picture--instead of talking vaguely 
about the ``old economy'' and the ``new 
economy,'' and about the mysterious difference between them, I 
want instead to talk about two ordinary household tasks: mowing the 
lawn and cleaning the basement. In my picture ``mowing the 
lawn'' will represent the old economy, and ``cleaning the 
basement'' will represent the new. (I warned you this would 
sound silly; but please hang on--it is not as dumb as it 
sounds). Why did I choose these particular examples? Because I think 
the fundamental change that we are calling ``the appearance of 
a new economy'' is a shift from an economy that strives to 
increase productivity by automating manufacturing, to one that 
strives to increase productivity by automating organizational tasks. 
The new frontier is the reorganization of supply chains and business 
processes to take advantage of ``information 
technology''--the ability of machines to do the 
organizational tasks that used to be handled by armies of clerks and 
middle managers. But this shift is so huge, complex, and hard to 
picture, that I want to pull it down to earth and discuss its 
central principles in the context of the kind of organizational task 
we all are familiar with: the problem of how to bring some order to 
a messy basement. By way of contrast, I want to compare this task to 
another one we all know and love: the problem of how to tame an 
unruly lawn. (You might ask, how is mowing the lawn manufacturing? 
Well, it is manufacturing shorter grass.)
    Now that I have identified my representative 
``industries'', I want to talk about how we can think 
about the nature of the ``public interest'' in the context 
of these tasks. As I continue this description, I hope you will see 
the advantages of translating our discussion to such a down-to-earth 
context. In this setting, it is easy to use one's ordinary intuition 
to understand the public interest in a conflict. Maybe it is hard to 
interpret the public's interest in the ``future of an online 
architecture for e-business,'' but how hard is it to think 
about what you want for the future state of your basement? I want 
you to see what our conflict with Microsoft would look like if it 
occurred in this ordinary context.
    So, to start my story, let me describe a conflict which 
illustrates a threat to the public interest in the context of the 
``old economy.'' Suppose I need my lawn mowed, and the kid 
who I usually hire to push my clunky old gas mower around the yard, 
instead shows up to work with a shiny, spiffy

[[Page 27830]]

new lawnmower of his very own. He has broken his piggy bank to buy 
it: he is very proud of himself and shows it off to everyone on the 
block. His beautiful new lawnmower mows the lawn twice as fast as 
the old one did. As a result, he can mow twice as many lawns in the 
same time. Pretty soon he is raking in the cash. He is making so 
much money, he can afford to lower his lawn-mowing rates, so he 
begins to steal business from the other lawn-mowing kids on the 
block. The other kids get upset. ``He's cheating!'' they 
cry. They gang up on him, beat him up, and smash his new lawnmower. 
The original kid, recovering in the hospital, appeals to the adults 
on the block for justice. ``The other kids were jealous of my 
success!'' he cries. ``They had no right to hurt me or my 
lawnmower. You should protect me so that nothing like this ever can 
happen again!''
    Should the adults listen to him? Absolutely. Not only was what 
happened to the kid unfair, it also damaged the public interest. 
When a kid can mow lawns twice as fast for less money, everyone on 
the block benefits. He put considerable investment and risk into 
obtaining his lawnmower, and it provided a benefit for everyone. 
Yes, he also made a lot of money from his new lawnmower, and maybe 
he was a little obnoxious about showing it off, but his good fortune 
was good fortune for everyone. Therefore, his investment deserved to 
be protected from the destructive jealousy of the other kids. The 
rich kid should be protected, and the jealous kids should be 
punished.
    Now, to continue, let me introduce another story of a situation 
which causes harm to the public interest, this time in the context 
of the ``new economy.'' Suppose I decide to hire a kid to 
help me clean my basement. This kid works very hard, sorting all the 
stuff in the basement, building appropriate-sized boxes for various 
categories of stuff, and carefully labelling all the boxes so it is 
easy to find things later. His hard work is useful to me: it helps 
me find things more easily. But there is trouble in my little 
paradise. One day, my little helper cannot come, so I hire another 
kid to help out. But this kid is different. He is careless: he puts 
things in the wrong boxes, and mislabels the boxes. Worse, he is 
devious: he discovers that if he puts things in the wrong boxes 
deliberately, and labels the boxes in a scrawl only he can 
understand, then he can make extra money off me, because I will need 
his help to be able to find things again. Worse still, he is 
ambitious: he realizes that if he puts the potting soil in a place 
where only he can find it, then pretty soon I will be forced to ask 
him to take charge of organizing the gardening shed as well. Thus he 
can double the amount of money he can make off me, and there is 
nothing I can do about it.
    So how do we think about the ``nature of the public 
interest'' in this situation? Well, in order to answer that 
question, it is important to ask first ``what is the result I 
am trying to achieve?'' If I hire someone to clean my basement, 
the result I want is a well-organized basement, a basement in which 
it is easy to find things. The kid who worked hard to sort things 
accurately and label the boxes clearly helped me achieve my goal. 
The kid who deliberately mislabeled the boxes and misplaced the 
potting soil did not help me achieve my goal. He hurt my interests, 
not merely because he over-charged me, took over my basement, and 
hatched devious designs on my gardening shed, but much more simply, 
because he failed to deliver to me the basic effect I wanted and 
needed. I needed a basement where I can find things easily: he 
didn't give it to me. By contrast, the first kid, the one who built 
me a good system of well-organized, well-labelled boxes, did give me 
the effect I needed. The first kid's actions served the public 
interest; the second kid's did not.
    This observation is the whole secret to understanding the 
``architecture of value'' of which Lessig spoke. What is 
an ``architecture of value?'' It is nothing fancy: one can 
think of it as an information architecture that would remind one of 
a well-organized basement. This architecture is valuable because the 
careful sorting and clear labels make it easier to find things. 
There is nothing terribly subtle or difficult about this idea. The 
only really deep concept here is the observation that it is useful 
to ask the question: ``what is the fundamental goal we are 
trying to achieve?'' We are entering into an 
``organization economy,'' and in such an economy, we want 
to achieve the goal of being well-organized. These central value of 
such an economy is no more complicated than the admonition we have 
all heard a thousand times from our mothers: ``it is nice to 
put things away where they belong so it will be easier to find them 
again later.''
    But if it is all so simple, why does it seem so hard? It seems 
hard because it IS hard, but it is not hard because anything about 
the situation is complicated. It is hard for quite another reason, 
which I want to illustrate using a third story. This, my final 
story, is a classic tragedy.
    Let us suppose that the first kid I hired to clean my basement 
returns from his vacation and ventures downstairs to view the state 
of his handiwork. When he sees what the second kid has done, words 
cannot describe what he feels at the sight of the ruin of all his 
hard work. He grabs the second kid by his shirt collar and drags him 
to me to face judgment. ``He's cheating!'' he cries. (He 
doesn't say much else: unfortunately this first kid--though a 
good, honest worker-- is not exactly the articulate type.) The 
second kid replies: ``He is just complaining because he is 
jealous of my success! He has no right to handle me this way or 
damage the valuable ``intellectual property'' I have 
created. You should protect me so that nobody can ever treat me like 
this again!'' Now when I hear these words, I remember my 
earlier trauma when I witnessed the kid with the new lawnmower get 
beaten up by a jealous gang. I remember how I pledged to the kid on 
his hospital bed that nothing like that would ever be allowed to 
happen again. This recollection plunges me into a state of fear and 
confusion. The first kid comes to me and begs for the right to re-
label the boxes correctly: it is hard to deny such a heartfelt 
request. On the other hand, I made a solemn pledge to the kid in the 
hospital that I would never, ever allow anything like the disaster 
that happened to him to happen to anyone else. I am riven in two: I 
do not know what to do.
    So I propose a compromise. I propose that certain of the boxes 
in the basement are to be declared ``Middleware'', and I 
will require of the kid who now owns the organization system of my 
basement that he reveal the meaning of the labels on those boxes. To 
protect his ``intellectual property,'' I only require that 
he reveal these labels to another party when they agree to sign a 
non-disclosure agreement. The second kid is happy enough to agree to 
that, especially since he alone knows exactly where he has hidden 
the potting soil, and he has carefully made sure that the box where 
it is hidden is not declared ``Middleware.'' In this way, 
his designs for the takeover of my gardening shed are unaffected. 
Since summer is coming, the control of the gardening shed is the 
only thing that really matters anyway, so he loses nothing by 
signing on to my ``compromise''.
    Now, what can we say about this compromise? Should I say that it 
is a bad compromise because I was not careful enough to locate the 
hidden potting soil before I settled on my definition of 
``Middleware''? Should I say that it is unfair to require 
people to sign a non-disclosure agreement whenever they want to get 
a hammer from the basement? I could say all these things, and more, 
but they seem to skim over the surface of the problem. Much more 
fundamentally, this compromise represents a failure to think clearly 
about what we are trying to accomplish. It is in our statement of 
the nature of the values which we are ``compromising'' 
that we have failed. We have failed to understand the essential 
values that we are pledged to protect.
    To appreciate the tragedy of this failure, imagine how this 
situation would appear to the first kid, the one who cares more than 
anything about properly organizing the basement. He worked hard and 
honestly to do the very best job he could, but to no avail: all his 
hard work was ruined. It wasn't even accidentally ruined--it 
was ruined on purpose. But when he tries to protest about this 
betrayal of his values, not only is he not listened to, he is also 
treated like a jealous, violent gang leader. Since he is not a 
sophisticated kid, he cannot figure out why any of this is happening 
to him. It simply feels to him like all the adults around him have 
gone mad.
    I might ask: what exactly were the essential values I failed to 
understand when I devised my compromise? One might say that my 
compromise shows how little I understand the values associated with 
the ``new economy.'' It is true that I have failed to 
understand how overwhelmingly important it is to have clearly 
labeled boxes in my basement. But this concept of 
``value'' in the new economy is so very simple and easy to 
understand, that one might also maintain that I understood it 
perfectly clearly. When I insisted that the ``Middleware'' 
boxes should be clearly labelled, I showed that I DO understand what 
constitutes value in the new economy.
    Nonetheless, my judgment was confused, but it was not a lack of 
understanding of the new economy that caused this confusion.

[[Page 27831]]

Instead, my judgment was clouded by the pain and confusion that the 
reminder of an old-economy conflict invoked in me. I ran into 
difficulties because I was led to apply ``old economy thinking 
to a new economy problem.'' In particular--this is the key 
point--my real failure came not from a failure to understand 
the values of the ``new economy,'' but from a failure to 
understand the values of the old one. When I promised to the kid in 
the hospital that nothing like what happened to him would ever be 
allowed to happen again, I did not define very clearly in my head 
what exactly it was I was pledging myself to protect. What exactly 
did I promise? Did I promise that in every circumstance where a rich 
and successful kid was challenged by a poorer, less successful kid, 
I would always side with the rich kid?
    NO, that is not what I promised. I made the promise to the kid 
in the hospital because I saw that his good fortune was good fortune 
for everyone, and therefore I pledged myself to protect it. But when 
I later found myself in a situation when a rich and successful kid 
demanded that I protect his good fortune, I forgot the rationale 
behind my original promise. If I had remembered it, I might have 
thought to ask myself ``in this new situation, is this rich 
kid's good fortune good fortune for everyone?'' Hopefully it is 
clear that this question receives a rather different answer in this 
situation. So, does my old promise bind me anymore? Am I required to 
devise a compromise between the interests of the two children in my 
charge? No, such a compromise doesn't make sense. I could make 
things much easier on myself if I just worried about protecting my 
own interests. My interest is to be able to easily find things in my 
own basement. The first kid fought for my interests, the second kid 
did not. It is that simple: there is no need for the terrible pain 
and confusion this case evokes, or the strange and convoluted 
compromises that are the result.
    So, to wrap up my story, I want to summarize the four conceptual 
errors I made which drove me to devise Such a thoroughly flawed 
compromise.
    First, I made two mistakes in my understanding of the ``new 
economy'':
    1. I did not understand how much value the first kid provided 
for me when he carefully sorted and labeled all my stuff.
    2. I did not understand how badly the second kid hurt me when he 
destroyed this careful labeling system. I did not understand how 
dangerous it is that I have become dependent on his aid to find 
anything in his system of artfully mislabeled boxes. Second, I made 
two mistakes in my application of principles that came from the 
``old economy'':
    3. When the second kid claimed to me that I had an obligation to 
protect his incentive to invest, I forgot that the statement of this 
obligation is that we must protect the ``incentive to invest in 
machinery to make a manufacturing job more productive.'' I need 
to protect a kid's incentive to break his piggy bank and buy a 
lawnmower, or I will have to put up with the fumes and noise from my 
old gas mower forever. But this obligation does not apply to the 
conflict between the kids who are cleaning my basement, because 
there is no machinery that will aid the task of 
``manufacturing'' a cleaner basement. So there is no need 
to protect the incentive to invest in such machinery.
    4. More generally, I made a mistake when I failed to notice how 
the second kid manipulated and abused my commitment to the values of 
the old economy with his carefully chosen words. Earlier I said that 
this kid was careless, and worse, devious, and worse still, 
ambitious. But worst of all, he is manipulative. He is perfectly 
willing to take our most central, sacred values and twist them into 
a empty caricature of themselves to serve his own interests. It is 
our mistake and our shame that we cannot see what is being done to 
us.
    So now I have completed my story. I have explained the essential 
failures of understanding that caused me to make a dreadful mistake. 
I promised earlier that when I was done I would take the lessons I 
have explained and tie them back to our complex and confusing real 
situation. So I will describe again the four mistakes I have just 
identified, this time as they appear in the real world. I contend 
that this settlement reveals that public officials fail to 
understand four important concepts that are crucial to understanding 
the nature of the public interest in the conflict with Microsoft.
    First, it reveals that there are two ways that public officials 
basically misunderstand the ``new economy.''
    1. They do not understand the tremendous value to society 
provided by the creators of the open standards of the Internet, the 
World Wide Web, the associated free software that supports the 
Internet (Apache, Bind, Perl, etc) and the free operating systems 
Linux and BSD. They do not understand the tremendous value to 
society of open, well-specified APIs on every level of the 
information architecture we are trying to build to support the 
future productivity of our society.
    2. They do not understand how badly society is hurt by 
Microsoft's manipulation of its APIs and file formats. They do not 
understand how much the constantly changing proprietary file formats 
hurt ordinary people's ability to get work done, nor do they 
understand the loss of potential productivity that occurs when a API 
is obscured or destroyed. They do not understand how Microsoft's 
control of the platform hurts the prospect for real competition and 
progress in the computer industry.
    Second, more seriously, it reveals two ways that public 
officials are confused about how to apply the values of the 
``old economy'' in this new situation.
    3. They haven't noticed that, just as you don't need a lawnmower 
to clean a basement, you don't need a lawnmower to write an 
operating system. All the effort to preserve a delicate balance 
between the need for open APIs, and the need to preserve the 
incentive to invest, have missed the point that we are protecting 
the incentive to invest in a purely imaginary lawnmower. There is no 
machinery that will make the job of writing an operating system any 
easier, so there is no need to protect the incentive to invest in 
imaginary machinery.
    4. Finally, they haven't noticed that Microsoft is lying to 
them. Microsoft is lying in a horrible way: they are invoking the 
values that honorable public officials have spent their whole lives 
protecting, and they are manipulating them, using them, twisting 
them around so they come to mean something entirely different. The 
government does not detect this duplicity--that is their 
greatest mistake. We engineers have a name for these kinds of lies: 
we call them FUD, which stands for ``fear, uncertainty and 
doubt.'' We watch Microsoft deliberately spread fear, 
uncertainty and doubt in the government, the courts and the general 
population, and we view with amazement and horror the enormous power 
that these lies have over the world. We are lost: we do not know 
what to do to combat lies which have such terrible power. We are 
like children who live in a world where all the adults have gone 
mad. Yours sincerely,
    Rebecca Frankel
    Has Your Opinion Been Counted?
    Earlier this month, you took part in a letter-writing campaign 
to express your opinion of the antitrust settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. We would like to thank you for 
your efforts and make sure that when we assisted you in organizing 
your thoughts on paper, you were completely satisfied that the draft 
letter fully expressed your own views in the matter.
    If you would like any changes, we would be happy to make them 
now. The public comment period on this settlement ends on January 
28. The provisions of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to 
all parties involved, and go beyond the findings of the Court of 
Appeals ruling; however, the settlement is not guaranteed until 
after the review ends and the District Court determines whether the 
terms are indeed in the public interest. If you would like your 
opinion to count, now is the time to send in your letter!
    Please send your comments directly to the Department of Justice 
via email or fax no later than January 28. If you have already done 
so, or will do so in the near future, please be sure to send a 
signed copy to the FIN Mobilization Office, or simply reply to this 
email with a short note indicating that you have sent your letter.
    Please take action today, to ensure your voice is heard. Once 
again, the Attorney General's contact information is:
    Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 
1-202-616-9937
    Email: [email protected]
    FIN Mobilization Office contact information:
    Fax: 1-800-641-2255
    Email: [email protected]
    Your support is greatly appreciated
    FIN Mobilization Office



MTC-00026553

From: Neil Prestemon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:19am
Subject: Mircosoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    I would like to voice my opinion on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement to the antitrust lawsuit. I have to say that the proposed 
settlement on the table today does

[[Page 27832]]

nothing to address the real issues in this case. The issues that 
have made Microsoft the monopoly it is, and the danger to existing 
competition, and any potential future competition.
    There certainly is not a level playing field in many areas. 
Though I do not believe that it's the government's job to provide a 
level playing field, I do believe that the government should do 
something when we're presented with a situation where the playing 
field has been rotated 90 degrees, and has become an impenetrable 
wall to the founding of new businesses and innovation.
    The areas of danger are as follows:
    Programming API's--Microsoft has a monopoly on programming 
frameworks for it's Windows platform. Any company that wants to 
write Windows software almost certainly has no real choice other 
than to use Microsoft's Visual Studio product, and Microsoft 
Foundation Classes framework. This is due to actions microsoft has 
taken against former competitors like Borland, and other OS Vendors. 
When a competitor is forced to use MFC to write third-party software 
for Windows, and software in the same market is also written by 
Microsoft, Microsoft then has a huge and unfair advantage, as 
undocumented features or programming flaws or misleading 
documentation within MFC itself can cause a third-party developer to 
spend far more man-hours acheiving the same degree of quality in 
their product as Microsoft can achieve, because Microsoft 
programmers also have access to the Microsoft programmers who wrote 
MFC, and the documentation. This is not merely a competitive 
advantage. This kind of advantage could be illustrated by analogy if 
General Motors sold the ONLY set of components by which any other 
company could build a car. You'd know that necessarily, GM's cars 
built with those components would be better than other company's 
cars built by those components. It's through their Visual Studio 
monopoly that Microsoft leverages an unfair advantage to keep third-
party companies writing software less efficiently than they do. I 
believe that Microsoft's API business needs to be spun off into a 
separate company.
    OEM Licensing--Microsoft should be prohibited from having 
secret agreements with OEMs. It has been proven in court that 
Microsoft, as the vendor of the Windows platform, uses such 
agreements to force OEMs into exclusive deals so that computer 
manufacturers cannot sell their computers pre-loaded with any other 
operating system.
    File Formats--Microsoft should also be forced to fully 
document formats of their products, and changes in these formats 
should not be allowed. As it stands today, if a company does it's 
work in Microsoft Office file-formats, they are literally 
``held captive'' by Microsoft, because if they choose to 
switch to a competing product, they will be forced into a costly 
migration of the data from the Microsoft format to the third-party 
format. It is not in Microsoft's interest to write translation 
tools, at least not translation tools that preserve fully, the 
features of their products in the translation--and though it 
would be in the interest of a competing software company to provide 
compatability or document translation, there is no way for them 
presently to do this with any degree of reliability, because some 
aspects of the file format are poorly documented, and Microsoft 
often changes these formats in ways that make it impossible for 
third-party companies to stay on top of them. Included in 
``file formats''--should also be Microsoft's 
protocols, their Kerberos security protocol, (so that consumers can 
choose third-party LDAP solutions for their Windows networks, 
instead of being forced to use Microsoft Active Directory), and SMB, 
their network file-sharing protocol. There currently exists a free-
software solution which allows computers of other operating systems 
to connect with Windows computers, and share files with them.
    However, Microsoft has changed their SMB protocol several times 
in an attempt to cause this other solution to no longer be 
compatible, and to cause the developers to spend time and effort 
trying to reverse-engineer SMB so they can fix the problems 
Microsoft creates. Without this solution (called Samba) it would 
otherwise be impossible for other operating systems to share files 
with WIndows computers. The lack of a solution compels many IT 
managers to simply avoid other operating systems and platforms, and 
go with a pure Windows-only solution. The most frightening aspects 
of a Microsoft monopoly lie not in the commercial sector, but in the 
computing field itself. Never mind the economic damage Microsoft's 
monopoly has created in crushing many competing software 
companies--never mind the amount of over charging Microsoft 
does because they CAN, because there is no other company that can 
compete with them--never mind the huge labor and hardware costs 
incurred by Microsoft's customer base due to effort required to work 
around product defects and poor architectural decisions Microsoft 
has made-- because they CAN, because competing products of 
higher quality, and lower hardware overhead have all been crushed by 
Microsoft's monopoly.
    The greatest danger is that the US Government relies heavily on 
Microsoft products, and as such is DEPENDENT on Microsoft to 
continue providing solutions, and access to data, locked in a 
proprietary format that cannot be easily or cheaply extracted. The 
next greatest danger is that of monoculture. In a global computer 
network, where all computers are Microsoft Windows, they ALL share 
the same vulnerabilities to viruses and hacker exploits. A monopoly 
and resulting monoculture in computing is a horrible danger to the 
security and economic stability of our nation, and even the entire 
world.
    And that is why the government MUST act. Swiftly, and 
forcefully, to protect it's citizens, and the entire world from this 
threat. It is the first duty of government to protect. Now that the 
Department of Justice, and then the US Courts have identified and 
recognized the threat, it would be folly, and a huge waste of the 
effort already invested to not act decisively against this threat, 
before it is too late to stop. Before it encompases other markets, 
like home electronics, media, and banking.
    If you have any need for me to clarify any of my statements, or 
if you require further comments, I would be happy to provide them. 
Please feel free to contact me at this email address at any point.
    Regards,
    Neil Prestemon
    Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
    [email protected]



MTC-00026554

From: Mary T Harvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:24am
Subject: This costly and damaging litigation must come to an end. 
Mary
    This costly and damaging litigation must come to an end.
    Mary



MTC-00026555

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:22am
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,
    James Lucey
    1217 E. LaPalma Ave.
    Anaheim, CA 92805-1450



MTC-00026556

From: Kathleen L Carey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my recommendation that you accept the proposed microsoft 
settlement as a reasonable compromise. It's time to move forward and 
on to other things.
    Sincerely,
    [email protected]



MTC-00026557

From: Karsten Wade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Please count my 
vote as completely against this settlement.
    Karsten Wade
    [email protected]
    http://phig.org/gpg/



MTC-00026558

From: Carol M. Watts

[[Page 27833]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Punishing Microsoft's monopoly practices by awarding them 
a monopoly in the school system is just plain criminal. What a 
sellout! We must have laws and practices which encourage innovation 
and competition. Do not reward arrogance and unethical 
behavior--not to mention, illegal actions. Support the public 
interest.
    Carol Watts
    448 Knoll Dr.
    Los Altos, CA 94024



MTC-00026559

From: Bruce Rogovin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please punish Microsoft for it's total disregard for US law and 
a general lack of any morals. The proposed settlement would do 
NOTHING to stop Microsoft from continuing in it's illegal ways and 
gaining even more power and advantage.
    Dr. Bruce Rogovin
    8686 Winton Rd.
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45231



MTC-00026560

From: Jeremy Walton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has clearly broken several laws in its attempt to 
eliminate competing software corporations. They have carried out 
actions to do so and have made it clear of their intent to create a 
monopoly. Microsoft has a dominating role in the industry because 
most programs must be run using a microsoft operating system such as 
Windows 95, 98, etc. They realized the threat of a new competitor 
through the Internet, being web browsers, Netscape navigator, being 
the main one. They pursued plans to eliminate Netscape navigator and 
others, as options for internet browsers. Microsoft has tied its 
windows programs with internet applications, has required that 
persons distribute its internet software along with other software 
in exchange for access to their operating system, and has required 
that they not distribute any non-Microsoft software. The Microsoft 
corporation should be broken up because of their illegal actions and 
to help boost the economy via competition.



MTC-00026561

From: Marie Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marie Murray
P.O. Box 97563
Raleigh, NC 27624-7563
January 26,2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a rule I hate to see money wasted; there is so much need for 
funds both here in American and abroad that to squander it is a 
travesty. One such is the case against Microsoft. Millions of 
dollars have been wasted on both sides of this dispute. We must stop 
this misappropriation of American tax dollars. The settlement that 
was reached in early November is fair. It will halt any further 
anti-trust violations, alleged or substantiated, with the 
establishment of a three person technical committee, which will 
oversee any further practices of Microsoft. Microsoft has also 
agreed not to retaliate against any company that tries to create 
software that competes against theirs.
    I feel that the sooner this unfortunate litigation is put behind 
us the better. I hope that we can continue as the leader of the 
technological field throughout the world, despite the setbacks that 
we have experienced since the commencement of this suit. Thank you 
for your time and diligence with this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Marie Murray



MTC-00026562

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let this settlement go through. There never should have been any 
investigation into Microsoft (MS) in the first place.
    The lawyer that took the case to trial was only looking to make 
a name for himself. I'm a democrat but this is the one (and only) 
time I will agree with GOP.
    Leave MS alone and never, never, bother them again!
    Sincerely,
    ME Durke



MTC-00026563

From: Justin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would have to say that the settlement proposed is rather weak. 
It has already been proven that Microsoft Corperation is a monopoly. 
This is a company that has repeatedly and blatently abused its 
monoply power. It has obstructed viable competition, ruthlessly 
destroying or relegating to obscurity any company or product that 
attempts to compete within its established markets. The continued 
exsistence of Microsoft Corp. in its current form is anti-
competition, anti-American. The computer industry as a whole will 
fare better with competition and this can only be acheived with the 
breakup of this monopoly as called for by U.S. law.



MTC-00026564

From: Pryor Garnett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed final judgment between the Justice Dept. 
and Microsoft. Of the many problems I see with the PFJ, I believe 
the one of greatest concern is that under the PFJ Microsoft retains 
and will continue to exercise the power to use its dominant control 
over the operating system for the desktop to maintain existing 
barriers to the entry by ISVs of application software, and raise new 
barriers to ISVs of application software against which Microsoft 
choses to compete. For that, and other reasons, I oppose the PFJ.
    Pryor Garnett
    Portland, Oregon
    [email protected]
    503-646-2188
    Watch the remodel at http://pws.prserv.net/pryor_garnett 
!



MTC-00026565

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:48am
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,
    Neldon Jensen
    7151 Towncrest Dr.
    Salt Lake City, UT 84121-3822



MTC-00026566

From: munafo@ews3@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse Scituate, MA
Antitrust Division Jan 26, 2002
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 believe that the Proposed Final Judgment fails to remedy the 
illegal practices that were found by the Court of Appeals for a 
number of reasons, including the following:
    Section III.A.2 of the Proposed Final Judgment allows Microsoft 
to retaliate against an OEM that ships computers containing a 
Competing operating system that is not a Microsoft operating system. 
For example, it allows Microsoft to retaliate against IBM and Apple 
because both of those companies ship Personal Computers that contain 
a compating operating system (Linux and MacOS respectively) and no 
copy of Windows.
    The definition of ``Microsoft Middleware'' (Proposed 
Final Judgment section VI definition J, and Findings of Fact 
paragraph 28) is too narrow. Microsoft could avoid the remedy by 
changing product version numbers (``Internet Explorer 
7.0.0'') or by distributing Middleware exclusively through

[[Page 27834]]

a different distribution method (like the Internet-based Windows 
Update service)
    The definition of ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' 
(Proposed Final Judgment section VI definition K) is too narrow. 
Microsoft could avoid the remedy by replacing the products covered 
by definition K with new products. For example, they are already 
replacing Microsoft Java with Microsoft.NET and C#.
    Therefore, I believe that the Proposed Final Judgment is not in 
the public interest, and must not be adopted without substantial 
revision.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Munafo, Scituate, Massachusetts, Software Engineer
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026567

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:54am
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 Gerlach
    17609 Alexson St.
    Springhill, FL 34610-7307



MTC-00026568

From: Steve Paris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:58am
Subject: Microsoft Serrlement
    Please log my displeasure with the Department of Justice(DOJ) 
settlement with the Microsoft Corporation. This wasn't a settlement, 
it was a full surrender by the victor. I can not believe that the 
DOJ actually negotiated with this corporate thug. It should be 
apparent by now with this second major offense that Microsoft isn't 
interested in changing its ways. What is needed is a serious penalty 
that will actually harm the company. The original punishment as 
imposed by Judge Jackson did not go far enough. Given all of the 
companies that Microsoft has destroyed and all of the associated 
employees that lost their jobs, Microsoft as an entity should be 
dissolved, its corporate officers fined and put into jail.
    Stephen Paris
    12211 SE 219th Place
    Kent, WA 98031
    (253) 630-1593
    [email protected]



MTC-00026569

From: Adam Bezark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    Here for your consideration is a hypothetical Legal Scenario. An 
organized crime kingpin is charged with racketeering. This criminal 
runs the ``mobs'' all across America. Whenever someone 
else has attempted to encroach on his territory, the mobster has 
resorted to ruthless, brutal, illegal tactics to crush his 
opponents.
    During the trial, his well-paid lawyers repeatedly mock the 
judicial process. They stall for time so the mobster can continue to 
collect his racketeering fees. They present shamelessly doctored 
evidence (easily detected by the prosecution). They point out a 
``grassroots'' letter writing campaign which proves that 
the public supports the mobster... but it soon turns out that the 
letters were all written by the kingpin's henchmen and lawyers.
    Meanwhile, the prosecution presents overwhelming evidence of the 
mobster's guilt.
    And so, despite the kingpin's most expensive efforts, the court 
finds him guilty of racketeering. Based on his egregious behavior, 
the court recommends an unusually stiff penalty. And yet, the 
appellate court sets that penalty aside, based on relatively minor 
elements of the trial judge's behavior.
    Encouraged by his reprieve, the mobster unleashes a brand-new 
racketeering scheme designed to ensnare even more victims. Next: In 
a curious turn of events, the Department of Justice--which has 
spent years prosecuting this confirmed criminal--quietly 
announces that it is scaling back or abandoning its efforts to 
prosecute the mobster. Appalled by these events, the news media and 
the general public wonder publicly whether the appellate court's 
soft stance is related to the fact that the mobster donated large 
sums of campaign funding to the new Administration. Is it possible 
to buy justice?
    Finally, in a grand gesture, the mobster offers a settlement. 
Instead of going to jail or paying a fine, he generously proposes to 
construct and operate sparkling new gambling casinos in every state. 
(At his own expense, of course.)
    Now then. In this fictional scenario, what would happen next? 
Wouldn't the public be outraged by the Department of Justice's 
apparent conflict of interest? Would the court hesitate to impose 
the maximum penalty on this unrepentant scofflaw? Without any 
meaningful penalty, would the criminal be remotely likely to improve 
his future behavior? So... please tell me. How is the Microsoft case 
any different?
    Respectfully submitted,
    Adam J. Bezark



MTC-00026570

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:02am
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,
    Sharon Bontrager
    PO Box 761
    Jacksonville, OR 97530-0761



MTC-00026571

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    CHUCK SAWYER
    516 ORANGE DR., APT. 13
    ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FL 32701-5304



MTC-00026572

From: Edgar Patrick Venzon-Landas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:09am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT.
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]



MTC-00026572--0001

January 26, 2002
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the

[[Page 27835]]

District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Re: Proposed Microsoft settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    In this age of technological innovation, Microsoft's hegemony in 
the realm of software threatens the future of computers and 
software. The danger of settling with Microsoft, thereby allowing 
the company to operate in its current form, is that it will stifle 
not only competition, innovation, and technology, but also, the 
emergence of future platforms that run computers, and in the future, 
computer-based information services. With its somewhat unchallenged 
monopoly in the operating system market and its development of .NET 
web services, Microsoft, in the absence of any forced structural 
remedies, has the power and resources to further any grip it has on 
the platforms that will run and drive our programs and information.
    To illustrate how Microsoft's dominance in operating systems 
threatens the future, I came up with a simple and comparable 
example. For a moment, let us pretend that Microsoft manufactured 
the door locks to our homes. Door locks are common, somewhat easy to 
install, and are a necessity because of the fact it serves as the 
average family's protection against burglars and intrusions. Now, 
let us assume that one day, Microsoft door locks were installed in 
your neighborhood. Because of its low price, everyone switched to 
Microsoft door locks and those who did not had the choice to stay 
with their current locks made by Doorlock X.
    Now, after a few months, Microsoft sent a letter to your 
neighborhood detailing an upcoming product launch stating that 
Microsoft just created a new door lock that is smaller and easier to 
install. As a result, almost all of your neighbors planned to 
purchase and install the new door locks until they received another 
notice.
    Doorlock X, the other big door lock maker available at the 
hardware store, rushed to the market with door lock x20, which is 
just as light and even stronger than Microsoft's door lock. 
Therefore, in order to compete with the Doorlock X, Microsoft priced 
its door lock products way below market price and started to package 
a new bolt lock with its door lock. Doorlock X, to the best of its 
ability, tried to compete with Microsoft in terms of price, but it 
failed. While the company and its door locks have not disappeared 
completely, Doorlock X's newest lock was installed in just one house 
in your neighborhood. After a year, to further stifle competition, 
Microsoft created another door lock, which not only required the 
homeowner to install a new door lock on a brand new door, but also, 
required the homeowner to install the bolt lock bundled with the 
door lock. For most of your neighbors, they did not mind the upgrade 
until they found out that after they installed the new door locks, 
they could not be removed easily. Not only were they not difficult 
to remove, Doorlock X could not be installed in your door in the 
future. Three months later, Microsoft sent yet another notice asking 
people to upgrade their sets of locks and if they were interested in 
purchasing home security services. Most of the neighbors, seeing the 
convenience in not needing to search for another company to provide 
these services, signed up with Microsoft to provide their doors, 
door locks, and home security. Three months later, after yet another 
upgrade and solicitation of new services by Microsoft came along, 
some of the neighbors refused to upgrade to Microsoft and saw value 
in Doorlock X's stronger door locks. However, the neighbors were 
shocked to find that no matter whom they hired, no one could 
uninstall the locks on their door.
    When they called Microsoft, the customer support people at 
Microsoft told them that it was possible to rip the lock off the 
door, and then and only then can one install a non-Microsoft lock. 
After being able to install their new door locks, Microsoft security 
Services approached your neighbors one day and told them that they 
could not use their home security services with their new locks. As 
a result, the Microsoft people disassembled their home security 
services, sloppily and hurriedly.
    After eventually finding new locks and a new home security 
service provider, your neighbors arrive from work the next day to 
find out that the entire neighborhood (including yours) behind a 
electrified gate and manned by Microsoft security guards. Of course, 
when the non-Microsoft people were denied entry through the new 
gate, Microsoft told them that they since they do not use their 
locks nor their security system, they cannot use this gate into 
their homes. Instead, they must first travel to the other side of 
the neighborhood and then drive behind the fence until they reach 
their homes from the backyard. Coupled with this inconvenience, the 
other neighbors who refused to use Microsoft security services were 
angry with this and complained again. The people at Microsoft 
defended their practices by telling them,'' We have not done 
anything illegal. We are making this neighborhood safer and you are 
still able to enter your homes.''
    A couple of months later, one of your neighbors, John Doe, gave 
a speech at a neighborhood meeting. In his speech, John Doe told 
everyone that nowadays, Microsoft Security Services protected most, 
if not all, of all the buildings and homes in their town. Because of 
this, all non-Microsoft customers must now carry different guest 
passes-one for Microsoft secured buildings/businesses, one for 
Microsoft secured homes, and of course, one for using Microsoft 
electronic security services. When it could not get any worse, at 
the end of the month, your whole neighborhood received yet another 
notice on your bill from Microsoft Home Security Services.
    It seems that Microsoft's new electronic motion detection and 
crime prevention services requires homeowners to not only upgrade 
your whole home security system, but also, requires every member of 
your family to identify him or herself with the Microsoft electronic 
patch (to distinguish between friend and foe), and non-Microsoft 
secured homeowners or guests who need to enter the secured 
neighborhood must either register with Microsoft (but not 
necessarily buy their systems), or risk tripping off the alarms in 
the neighborhood. Moreover, the system will auto-upgrade itself 
automatically and start billing each home electronically every 
month. Failure to pay and/or continue Microsoft security services 
might result in a two or three-day power outage since Microsoft and 
your electricity company have struck a deal in wiring your home for 
Microsoft Home Security. In the end, you and your neighbors have no 
other choice but to subscribe to Microsoft and every future security 
upgrade.
    Of course, in my allegorical example, the whole progression from 
the Microsoft door locks to Microsoft Home Security Services 
reflects the way Microsoft does business. Mainly, Microsoft sells 
its products and bundles similar, competing products to stifle 
competition, keeps the competition away by making it difficult for 
Microsoft customers from switching, requires constant, expensive, 
and restrictive upgrades that lock the consumer into the Microsoft 
``way'', and finally, it, as seen in the .NET and its 
recent foray into different services, tries to blackmail the 
consumer by making it almost impossible to escape their services and 
products. In short, Microsoft utilizes monopolistic tactics to 
expand its hold on the various platforms by simply making it 
difficult and expensive for others to use other alternatives in the 
market. Because of these reasons, as seen in my example, it is 
important that you, in your capacity as a judge overseeing this 
monopoly trial, formally reject the proposed settlement between the 
Justice Department and Microsoft and impose harsh punishments 
(preferably structural) to prevent this situation I narrated from 
being realized in the computer/software/service industries.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Edgar Patrick Landas.
    EMAIL: [email protected]



MTC-00026573

From: Pat Mahoney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To begin my comments on the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) to the 
Microsoft case, I assert that I am a US Citizen and resident of the 
state of Illinois.
    I have read through several parts of the PFJ. Clearly it imposes 
restrictions on Microsoft. However upon reflection, and after 
reading several online critiques of the PFJ, I have come to the 
conclusion that these restrictions are insufficient.
    One item in particular stood out from the others. The PFJ 
requires Microsoft to disclose certain ``APIs'' under 
reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing terms to competing 
software companies wishing to interoperate with Microsoft products. 
The problem with this is that ``reasonable and non-
discriminatory'' terms seem to inherently discriminate against 
one specific Microsoft competitor know as Free software or open 
source software.
    It can be argued that Free or open source software is the chief 
competitor to the Microsoft monopoly. The Linux operating system, 
widely seen as a Microsoft competitor, falls under the category of 
Free

[[Page 27836]]

software. Free and open source software are unique in that unlike 
the products of Microsoft they may be obtained at little to no cost 
and redistributed indefinitely. Free software products defy the 
concept of ``ownership'' as everyone has the right to 
copy, change, or redistribute the software (unlike Microsoft 
software).
    With this in mind, it should become clear that ``reasonable 
and non-discriminatory'' license terms discriminate against 
Free and open source software. Any sort of royalty fee Microsoft may 
wish to impose when it licenses its APIs to competitors would render 
Free and open source competition impossible. Because it can be 
redistributed freely, and because it is difficult to define an 
``owner'', any piece of Free software wishing to use a 
Microsoft API to compete with an existing Microsoft product cannot 
possibly hope to satisfy the terms of the license under which 
Microsoft divulged its API.
    For example, consider a Free software product which uses a 
Microsoft API and must pay a royalty of one cent ($0.01) per copy of 
the software. Since the software is Free, a user obtaining a copy is 
free to make copies of his own with no limit. Obviously the product 
cannot pay the royalty to Microsoft because anyone is possession of 
a copy is free to make more copies and give these to others who can 
then make more copies ad nauseum.
    So it seems that the PFJ gives Microsoft a ``license to 
discriminate'' against what many consider to be its chief 
competition. In my opinion this does not server the public and must 
be remedied.
    Pat Mahoney



MTC-00026574

From: Kurt Buecheler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2304 41st Avenue E
Seattle, WA 98112-2732
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter to express my opinion on the settlement 
reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. For three 
years I have followed the case against Microsoft with avid interest. 
I have become increasingly annoyed with the length of the litigation 
process. The terms of the federal settlement are extremely fair and 
I believe that it should be enacted without hesitation. Any 
continued mediation in this case would be poor judgment by the 
Justice Department.
    Further, the terms of the settlement include many concessions on 
behalf of Microsoft. The terms of the agreement call for the 
disclosure of protocols and internal interface designs of the 
Windows system. This will result in the ability for competing 
developers to produce software that may be more compatible with the 
Windows system. In addition to this Microsoft has allowed for the 
formation of a technical review board that is composed of outside 
members. This panel will ensure Microsoft's compliance with the 
terms of the settlement.
    It becomes increasingly clear that the enactment of this 
settlement is important. Resolution in this case will benefit the 
technology industries and the economy. Please enact the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Kurt Buecheler



MTC-00026575

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    I urge you to reject the proposed final judgment in the U.S. vs. 
Microsoft antitrust case before your court.
    Every court has ruled that Microsoft violated antitrust laws, 
reaping billions of dollars of profit in the process. The proposed 
settlement allows the company to keep almost all of these illegal 
profits. Furthermore, there is no provision to guarantee us that 
this monopolist won't wield its market power to crush competition in 
the future. Microsoft is left to police itself, and its power is in 
no way diminished.
    The proposed settlement has Microsoft ``giving'' 
software and hardware to schools. Sounds good politically, but in 
practice this only increases the monopoly presence of Microsoft. 
Perhaps the only market they don't completely dominate (education 
market) will now be owned by this convicted monopolist.
    Please reject the proposed final judgment for all these serious 
flaws.
    Sincerely,
    Cyrus Salehi
    CC:[email protected]@inet
gw



MTC-00026576

From: Jeanette R Laris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to end this costly and damaging litigation. Please 
settle this ASAP.
    Jeanette R. Laris
    Concerned senior



MTC-00026577

From: Joseph A. Sonnier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:13am
Subject: microsoft settlement



MTC-00026579

From: Lori Buecheler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2304 41st Avenue East
Seattle, WA 98112
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Today I write to voice my support of the Microsoft settlement. 
It is true that the Microsoft Corporation has been at the forefront 
of the technology industries in recent years. Their leadership, 
however, is the result of a dedication to excellence that is not 
matched within the industry. The result is the continual production 
of quality products that out perform any substitutes. This is in by 
no means a crime. I therefore take issue with the federal pursuit of 
a case based upon outdated statutes.
    Regardless of this opinion, I believe that the settlement 
agreement is in the best interests of the public. Too much time has 
already been spent in the litigation process and the entire 
technology industry has suffered for it. Further, anyone wary of 
Microsoft's compliance with the terms of the agreement should be 
eased as the agreement calls for the formation of a watchdog group.
    I adamantly believe that enacting the settlement will encourage 
confidence and growth within the tech industry. The Justice 
Department should suppress any opposition to the enactment of this 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Lori Buecheler



MTC-00026580

From: The Chin Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To U.S. Department of Justice:
    I have been following the Microsoft antitrust case through 
articles in the San Jose Mercury News. The most recent article from 
today's paper confirms a disturbing pattern that has plagued the 
business world...that many have lost their conscience in order to 
reap larger profits...that competition is no longer the catalyst for 
developing new products in certain markets...that monopolies 
continue to exist and operate with impunity.
    Former U.S. Senator John Tunney criticized Microsoft's 
disclosure of its contacts with our government throughout the 
antitrust case as ``inadequate''. Microsoft interpreted 
his legislation, The Tunney Act, with tunnel vision; and ultimately, 
to their benefit, as the case was settled with the U.S. government 
and 9 of 18 states. Why have large corporations with their 
Congressional lobbying groups become so influential in determining 
the fate of the general public?
    This is a company that produces a ubiquitous operating system 
and now a ubiquitous internet browser; only because it has bullied 
and squeezed out much of the competition over the years. I am an 
Apple computer enthusiast, but I have to work in a Windows NT world. 
Yes, I use some of Microsoft's products on both platforms. Yes, they 
do make some good software. But is it good because they've lured or 
snatched up many of the talented people that worked for their 
competition at one time? Is it good because most consumers do not 
know or care what else is available because Microsoft applications 
were pre-loaded with their computer?
    Yes, I do not agree with the appeals panel overturning Judge 
Thomas Penfield Jackson's verdict to split the company in two, which 
resulted in the Microsoft-U.S. settlement. It's been reported that 
the settlement is ?riddled with loopholes and ineffective in curbing 
Microsoft's monopoly practices.? Please do not make an already 
powerful company more powerful. I will be watching what develops 
with the European regulators, with the 9

[[Page 27837]]

remaining holdout states, as well as with the Netscape browser case.
    Thank you for providing a feedback mechanism to the public on 
this important case.
    Regards,
    Bobby Chin
    Sunnyvale, CA



MTC-00026581

From: Delbert Franz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft has various weaknesses 
that if not corrected in some way will render the settlement 
ineffective in providing a remedy to the past business practices and 
in the opinion of many, the current business practices of Microsoft. 
Previous settlements with Microsoft have proved ineffective and it 
would be unfortunate if this one suffers the same fate.
    My comments are restricted to the effect that the proposed 
settlement appears to have on the rapidly growing segment of 
computer software known as Open Source. One of the more credible 
alternatives to a Microsoft operating system is GNU Linux or just 
Linux for short. This software has been developed by a network of 
individuals donating their time and expertise over a period of 
years. Section III of the proposed settlement does not provide any 
protection for non-profit groups. The lack of such protection then 
allows Microsoft to move ahead without fear of restraint to 
undermine if not destroy its most credible source of competition. 
Linux excels in its ability to interoperate with other operating 
systems. This has been accomplished by the dint of hard labor 
deciphering various data and communication formats, with no help 
from Microsoft. If the settlement goes through as is, it is highly 
likely that Microsoft will move to change some aspects of the data 
formats needed for Linux's interoperation with Microsoft software 
with a concomitant move to enjoin any further interoperation on the 
grounds that the settlement does not offer protection to non-profit 
entities.
    Clearly the protection offered to for-profit groups by this 
settlement should be extended to non-profit groups. If it is not, 
Microsoft will be enabled to severely hamper or even quash the Open 
Source movement in its effort to create an alternative to Microsoft 
software. Any business that wishes to use Open Source software must 
be able to interoperate with Microsoft software in order to survive, 
solely because of the effective monopoly position that Microsoft 
currently holds, and clearly wishes to maintain. Destroying or 
hampering interoperation with Linux and its related software would 
be the most effective way for Microsoft to disable this competition.
    Delbert D. Franz
    Linsley, Kraeger Associates, Ltd.



MTC-00026582

From: Paul Searing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to briefly state my beliefs related to the 
Microsoft Settlement.
    I believe that this settlement is drastically unsatisfactory.
    From my readings of the materials I see no reason to believe 
that this settlement will prevent Microsoft from continuing to 
participate in illegal, anti competitive practices--the same, 
similar, and dissimilar to those cited in the original complaint.
    Some of the proposed remedies, in my understanding, will 
actually improve Microsoft's footing in what have been its 
traditionally weak areas.
    I only today learned of the opportunity to voice my opinions on 
this matter and thus do not have any long or rigorous analyses of 
problems and/or solutions. However, I do feel strongly about this 
matter and sincerely hope that just and effective measures can, and 
will, be taken against Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Paul Searing



MTC-00026583

From: Amit Shah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think Microsoft should be broken in to three different 
companies.
    1) Operating Software only.
    2) Internet browser and Internet services.
    3) Application software's only.
    The reason why it should be broken in to three different 
companies is that it uses its operating software platform to destroy 
the competitors. For example, Windows, at first, distributed its 
Internet Explorer browser for free. Then they bundled it with 
Windows ``95 and onwards killing Netscape's business.
    Lotus was the first in the market to come with the new concept 
of Spread Sheet and Wordperfect; but they were systematically killed 
using the same operating software platform.
    Now Microsoft's next target is to destroy Utility softwares like 
Photo Suites and CD burning software's by incorporating its version 
of these softwares into Windows XP. On top of this, Windows XP will 
constantly give conflict messages stating that either Windows or the 
competitors product will not work properly. These messages are not 
only irritating but can be threatening for those who are not 
computer experts; eventually forcing them to convert to Microsoft 
products.
    Bill Gates claims that he and his company have come out with 
many new and better products. Of these new products, how many are 
truly his (his company's) ideas? Ever since he has entered the 
computer industry, he has always ``borrowed'' ideas from 
others.
    1) He sold off the shelf QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) 
He never developed it.
    2) He stole the idea of using GUI and Windows icons from Apple 
computers. He never developed it.
    3) Re-wrote Spread-Sheet as Excel and Wordperfect as Word, 
stealing ideas from Lotus. Never developed it.
    4) Re-wrote Netscape's Internet Browser as Internet Explorer. 
Never developed it.
    5) Photo Suite, Internet security, CD burning software, disk 
cleaning etc. were separate softwares, which are now incorporated 
into Windows XP; none of which were his creations.
    Bill Gates has not created any of these but as stolen them. This 
was ought right theft, done in a legal manner.
    Even after practically monopolizing utility softwares, 
productivity softwares and operating softwares, Bill Gates is out to 
control the Internet Service area as well. By providing internet 
services like MSN and Hot mail, he will be able to do this.
    Microsoft should be split into three different areas instead of 
only two or nothing at all because all three areas are keys in 
monopolizing the business; therefore, the must be kept separate to 
avoid for a monopoly like Microsoft. Not only has Bill Gates taken 
over PC relating businesses but he has already started capturing 
Video-Games as well (Xbox). Microsoft must be split before its 
monopoly gets out of hand.



MTC-00026584

From: Lil'nMark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time for a settlement
    Mark & Lilly White



MTC-00026585

From: Ruth A Distin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:35am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I strongly urge you to finalize the settlement with Microsoft!! 
Please don't let this thing drag out any longer just because of a 
few sore people. It seems to be a fair settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Ruth A. Distin



MTC-00026586

From: Steve Cain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    My opinion, for what it is worth, is that our economy began to 
suffer when you, the DoJ, commenced you attacks on a legitimate and 
viable company, a company employing thousands and providing a 
product used by many.
    Your suit seems to be based on the premise that we, the 
consumer, are being ripped off; a puzzling position in that I 
received my copy of the Windows operating system free and can access 
the internet with software I received free. I might add that I 
continue to receive free AOL disks and have never paid for the 
browser I use, Netscape. I have heard no complaints about those 
companies giving away free software.
    My feeling now is that those who would continue to pursue the 
suits against Microsoft are looking either for glory or market 
advantage when they can get neither any other way.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Cain
    Gig Harbor, Washington



MTC-00026587

From: Richard Winkler

[[Page 27838]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:37am
Subject: RE: microsoft settlement
    The excellent e-mail below was sent to you by my sister, and I 
am writing to you to second everything she says and to ask you to 
stop being so dishonest and to Laissez-Nous Faire (Let us alone).
    Richard Winkler
    [email protected]
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division, US Dept of Justice Re: Microsoft settlement
    I am writing regarding the persecution of Microsoft to let you 
know how I think and feel about this dastardly affair. I resent the 
government's implication that I am a helpless victim because I 
choose to buy a computer with Microsoft software already loaded. I 
resent the arrogance on the government's part thinking that it can 
decide what is to be on my computer. This is ridiculous. That is not 
the government's job. Your job is to protect the citizenry from 
events such as September 11. Why aren't you persecuting that whole 
affair more vigorously? Why aren't you going after Iran, Iraq? This 
is how you choose to spend taxpayer money by persecuting an American 
company?
    I cannot remember having instigated a complaint against 
Microsoft, nor do I recall any other individual doing so. This whole 
affair has been instigated by competitors who are unable to compete 
in the free market! Failed business should not be the ones to set 
the rules for the very markets in which they failed.
    The government's application of the corrupt and dangerous 
antitrust laws against successful businessmen is anti-American and 
can only result in greater corruption in our society as businessmen 
find it ever more necessary to kowtow to politicians.
    Microsoft and its owners have a right to the fruits of their 
labor-- their property--and it is the government's job to 
protect this right not take it away. The government's actions are on 
principle anti-American and unconstitutional.
    America is a land open to all who want to dream and work hard to 
see their dreams come true. If the government throttles success 
based on the envy and dishonesty of the few then there is no hope 
left in the world.
    The antitrust laws are fraudulent and should be repealed. And by 
the way I love Microsoft products and not having to load software 
and not having to pay for a browser!
    Sincerely,
    Margaret and Evencio Sanchez
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026588

From: Abe Gindi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To US Department of Justice:
    There is only one way to prevent Microsoft from using Windows 
Operating System to its own advantage over its competitors. When 
Microsoft incorporates its own application software into Windows, it 
does it by means of an unconventional interface that it calls 
``seamless'' while forbidding others from doing the same 
thing through the licensing agreement which all users must sign. The 
solution is to force Microsoft to use the same Windows interface 
that all others must use and to redefine the interface such that it 
can be more efficient and generally usable by all potential users. 
Microsoft intentionally made the interface clumsy and inefficient to 
the disadvantage of its competitors.
    History shows us that this is the best way to solve the problem. 
IBM had two major interfaces that it was forced to standardize by 
the anti-trust consent decrees. These are the Disk drive or 
peripheral component interface, and the channel interface. When disk 
drive manufacturers succeeded in making plug compatible drives in 
competition with IBM, IBM made a change to the interface that would 
have forced manufacturers to make an expensive change to their 
inventories in order to be plug compatible. IBM was forced through 
anti-trust action to reverse the change and to make the interface 
standard. A similar case was made with the channel interface that 
connects the drive control unit to the CPU channel.
    Although IBM complained that standardizing the interface would 
not allow for improvements and future innovations, the standard 
channel interface allowed plug compatible competitors to build their 
own control units to connect to IBM computers. The conditions were 
that any improvements that IBM made in the future had to be such 
that the interface continued to be backward compatible. That is old 
hardware was able to connect to the new improved interface without 
any changes.
    I recently had a similar problem with Windows software. A few 
years ago, I had some very important software that worked with 
Windows 3.1. An important improvement was made in a new release of 
this software but the new release was only compatible with Windows 
98. I had to upgrade to Windows 98 in order to use the new release 
of the software. If the rule of backward compatibility were in 
force, I could have stayed with my Windows 3.1.
    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) committee has 
been active and successful in standardizing interfaces in the 
computer field. The committee is made up of representatives of 
industry that are interested in each interface. The committee can 
modify and define the Windows interface to the satisfaction of all 
major users and make it more efficient and general so that future 
applications will not be handicapped by an obsolete interface.
    Each corporate member of the committee gets one vote in decision 
making although they may have more than one representative. If 
Microsoft is forced to use the standard interface defined by the 
ANSI committee for all its application soft ware, it will not have 
any advantage over its competitors.
    I propose this solution to the Microsoft anti-trust remedy. With 
all application software having to use a standard interface to 
Windows, all comers can have an equal chance of selling their 
software without being bullied by the owner of the Windows Operating 
System.
    Abe M. Gindi
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026589

From: F. Nourbakhsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To:
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Microsoft has tried many legal maneuvers, political influences, 
lies and money power to cause delays in this case and make people 
believe they have done nothing wrong. But the truth is out and 
everyone I talk to knows that Microsoft will even have a tighter 
grip on our daily lives if we don't do something drastic about it. 
We can not sit still and let the gorilla go about it's business 
practices as in the past. A hefty fine in itself is not an adequate 
remedy either. Microsoft has to be forced to change the way it does 
business and has to be monitored to ensure we have fair competition 
in the marketplace.
    I hope that our legal system sees through the smoke Microsoft is 
hiding behind and does what is Right instead of what may be 
politically correct or good for the stock market.
    I urge the department of justice to give the little guys a 
chance to compete so that consumers like myself have a real choice. 
Punish Microsoft to the full extend of the law and force them to 
change their unfair business practices.
    Cordially,
    Fred Nourbakhsh
    Minneapolis, MN



MTC-00026590

From: Niranjan Pardasani
TO: Microsoft ATR DATE: 1/27/02 1:48am
Subject: Re: Microsoft Antitrust case
    Please see attached letter.
    Nick Pardasani
    3861 Toland Avenue
    Los Alamitos, CA 907020
    January 26, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    I am writing to support Microsoft in the antitrust case they are 
entrenched in. I am in favor of Microsoft because of America's free 
market system. I strongly believe that government try to avoid 
restrictions on free enterprise, and that in this case, Microsoft 
should be left alone.
    In regard to this case, Microsoft has assented to terms that 
were originally non-factors in this case, such as terms concerning 
disclosure of intellectual property. Microsoft also will undertake 
changes in its relationships with other IT companies. Under the 
settlement, Microsoft promised not to strike back at those 
developers or makers who attempt to manufacture, ship, or advertise 
competing companies'' software.
    I have grown tired of hearing about the Microsoft case. Again, I 
believe that Microsoft as a corporation should be free to conduct 
business as it see fit. However, it is my hope that you, as the 
justice keeper of this great country, will bring this case to a 
quick and fair end.

[[Page 27839]]

    Sincerely,
    Nick Pardasani



MTC-00026591

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 27, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my opinion of the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. I am happy to 
see that Microsoft will not be broken up. But a number of the 
concessions that Microsoft is being forced to make are unfair.
    My son works for Xerox. Ever since Xerox's patents expired and 
they were forced to share their information with other companies, 
Xerox has not been the same. When a company spends incredible 
amounts of time, money, and resources to create a technology that 
other companies were not able to create, the company should not be 
punished for its innovation. It is the company's right to bask in 
the fruits of its labor. Compromise is always a difficult thing. I 
hope Microsoft is making concessions that will be in the best 
interest of the company, as well as the computer industry.
    I also hope the Department of Justice and the nine states in 
opposition will discontinue any further litigation because it is in 
the best interest of the American public. I look forward to the IT 
sector getting back to normal and continuing the growth rate that 
propelled the economy before the lawsuits began.
    Sincerely,
    Janet E. Malatesta
    1009 Stoneham Circle
    Hatfield, PA 19440-4124



MTC-00026592

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a 43 year-old scientist and engineer. I switched from DOS 
to Linux in 1993, a change that helps me work more effectively. Even 
with my nearly exclusive use of Linux, I daily have to deal with 
unpleasant side effects of Microsoft's monopoly.
    I have read the Proposed Final Judgment cover to cover. I concur 
with the assessment of others, such as Dan Kegel and Robert Bork, 
that it is a toothless sham which will do nothing to restore choice 
and competition to the personal computer software marketplace. In 
it, Microsoft makes minor concessions to its already vanquished foes 
of the past decade, while entrenching and solidifying its ability to 
resist its foes of the coming decade.
    Microsoft has a long history of buying and/or ``cutting off 
the oxygen'' of its potential for-profit competitors. With its 
enormous stockpile of cash, it's hard to see how any conduct remedy 
will reverse this trend. These methods of maintaining its monopoly 
(now shown to be illegal) don't work against free-as-in-speech 
software, like Linux, Samba, and Wine. For this reason, many people 
in and out of Microsoft consider such software to have the best long 
term chances of breaking the Microsoft Windows monopoly. Microsoft's 
nascent strategies for sidelining these potential competitors will 
be legitimized and strengthened by the proposed settlement.
    I can only find two ways to explain the Justice Department's 
support of this agreement: either they are totally oblivious to the 
open source movement and its threat to Microsoft, or they, like 
Microsoft, want control of computers concentrated in the hands of a 
plutocracy, and kept away from America's unpredictable and 
unfettered citizens. Since court decisions have repeatedly confirmed 
that source code is speech, this second explanation is equivalent to 
government opposition to citizen ownership of printing presses. Ben 
Franklin would roll over in his grave. Here are the aspects of the 
proposed settlement that I find particularly egregious:
    *It carefully excludes open source projects, such as Wine and 
Samba, from the third parties to whom they must release 
documentation etc. (III.J.2).
    *While Microsoft is required to license patents on a non-
discriminatory basis (III.I.1), the cash-for-ideas concept itself 
discriminates against free software, that has no revenue stream or 
control over its ``customers'', the free citizenry.
    *Microsoft does not have to disclose which patents might apply 
to its software's functionality, protocols, and interfaces. This 
leaves its sales force enormous room to inject FUD (fear, 
uncertainty and doubt) into its discussions with customers 
considering alternatives to Microsoft. Such behavior is already 
documented.
    *Technical information that Microsoft discloses about its 
products can not be used to design or implement products that either 
compete with Windows, or run on operating systems other than Windows 
(VI.I).
    *No requirement is placed on documenting, or even stabilizing, 
the file formats used to interchange word processing documents. 
Without such disclosure, attempts by competitors to read or write 
these documents will be (and have been) unreliable at best. Since 
many entities, including the U.S. government, often require 
documents to be submitted in this file format, the lack of 
compatible software institutionalizes a requirement that everybody 
buy Windows.
    I believe that ending the prolonged anti-trust case with this 
settlement would send a loud pro-big-business, anti-consumer, and 
anti-competitive message to the computer industry. While free 
speech, free ideas, and free software will ultimately survive and 
flourish without the cooperation of government, this settlement 
would be seen for years as a win for big money, and a loss for the 
people. Please join the Attorneys General for California, 
Connecticut, et al., and reject this settlement as bad for the 
computer industry, the worldwide Internet, and the nation.
    Lawrence R. Doolittle
    836 Meander Dr.
    Walnut Creek, CA 94598
    P.S. Like about 2000 others, I also signed Dan Kegel's open 
letter, http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html, which goes into 
more technical detail than this one.



MTC-00026593

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honorable Kollar-Kotally,
    I was dismayed when I learned of the proposed judgment that the 
Department of Justice is considering to accept.
    The proposed Judgment does not address the anticompetitive 
practices that Microsoft was proved to be doing by the appeals 
court.
    I was glad to hear that a Judge threw out Microsoft's proposal 
that they donate one billion dollars to schools. Imagine a 
punishment that would enable Microsoft to dramatically weaken Apple 
Computer's presence in the school systems!
    America looks to your wisdom in determining a just punishment 
and more importantly, ensuring our free market remains truly free 
from intimidation of monopolistic organizations. Thank you for your 
consideration,
    Joyce Ferguson
    San Jose, CA 95134



MTC-00026594

From: Kelley Terry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement proposed is a nightmare. I look at going into 
programming and/or servicing linux based machines. According to the 
settlement the private non-profit organizations that need access to 
windows api's to make compatible code aren't even considered a 
business and are therefore denied access to windows code!! Absurd!!
    My understanding (perhaps limited) of patent or copyright law 
was that it was set up to provide protection against others using 
ideas that took time and effort to produce. That protection is good 
and it's primary purpose was to promote innovation and invention by 
giving financial security to the inventor so he could recoup his 
investment. Microsoft has taken the extreme position (and always has 
and always will if allowed) of using this copyright protection to 
promote a monopoly and thereby strangling rather than promoting 
innovation and invention. I'm no legal expert but that's obviously 
against the original, basic principles of copyrights.
    It said use windows 95 or better so I loaded linux!
    In a world without walls and fences who needs windows and gates?
    Kelley Terry 



MTC-00026595

From: Edward Mills
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    An Independent User Voice--not lobbied by anyone speaks.
    My opinion is that the previous decision to split Microsoft was 
TOO LENIENT and the current proposed settlement is an insult to

[[Page 27840]]

any and all who do not own Microsoft stock. I have been a PC user 
since the early days and have watched Microsoft manipulate the 
previous settlement on DOS into a joke. They killed Netscape, and 
before that Wordperfect, and Lotus123, and Quattro Pro which was 
clearly technically superior to Excel, and before that DR DOS. They 
have almost delayed this decision till it is moot as the release of 
Windows XP has already occurred. The proposal to distribute FREE or 
discounted software is no remedy but rather a well thought out anti-
competitive ploy in itself. The best way to secure future use is to 
get the kids hooked--the tobacco industry and alcohol industry 
know this and software is even more perverse in that it is legal to 
promote your product to schools in hope that users will not want to 
migrate to a different system. Apple knows this and their last hold 
was that many educational entities still use Mac systems. The 
proposal would take this one hold away from the only real competitor 
Microsoft has not completely killed. As a minimum, Microsoft must be 
made to pay back users who were harmed and not in discount 
certificates; also they should be broken up into 2 or 3 companies 
representing Operating Systems, Applications, and Internet. Further 
their ownership of distribution of information networks should be 
curbed and they should be restricted to current business 
applications with proposals for expansion subject to oversight by a 
court master. I am sure that this is in the minority as Microsoft 
lobbies effectively by many means including mass e-mail campaigns.



MTC-00026597

From: John Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    The only actions that I have seen that are harming the consumer 
is the government attempt to create alternatives for the consumer. A 
computer operating system is not like our highway system. Our cars 
operate just fine regardless of the road construction, asphalt, 
cement, gravel, dirt and so on. There was more diversity in rail 
lines, the spacing of the tracks was different at times. The rail 
cars and equipment designed for one gauge of road did not work on 
others.
    The comparison between rail lines is much more akin to attempts 
to engineer compatible software operating systems or features by 
different companies. IBM attempted to make their OS2 compatible with 
programs wrote to run on MS Windows. It didn't work, if they 
couldn't do it, who is going to? Sun Microsystems JAVA is likewise 
not doing what Sun said it would. According to SUN a software 
designer could write it once and it would run anywhere. Maybe the 
ridiculously simple things will, but any meaningful productivity 
applet still needs to be ``tweaked'' and then it might not 
achieve cross platform ability.
    Our country will be better off, and our consumers will be better 
off with one basic operating system vendor than with the market 
being split between three.
    The biggest cry of foul comes from Microsoft's competitors who 
have had the privilege of over charging business users but are now 
seeing their revenues crash since they have to compete with equally 
or more capable software from Microsoft.
    This kaleidoscope of lawsuits from the DOJ and nineteen states 
and now other companies and foreign countries is only going to hurt 
the consumer and probably the United States.
    Sincerely,
    John Johnston



MTC-00026599

From: E.S.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:58am
Subject: I OPPOSE the current Microsoft settlement proposal
    I am OPPOSED to the current Microsoft settlement, and I SUPPORT 
HARSHER PENALTIES against Microsoft.
    Microsoft have been convicted of violating the Sherman antitrust 
law on several counts, and have been found guilty of illegally using 
their monopoly power in order to maintain their monopoly power, thus 
destroying competitors such as Netscape and preventing consumer 
choice by forcing OEM suppliers to use only Microsoft software (or 
else face unreasonably harsh and anti-competitive penalties by 
Microsoft).
    The current proposal does nothing to penalize Microsoft; without 
penalties, the nation (and indeed the world) as a whole is not 
served justice. Allowing Microsoft to escape this long-lived battle 
relatively unscathed-- *especially* after being found guilty on 
several counts--would make a mockery of our judicial system, 
and whatever respect for the system that still exists in the minds 
of the public will be further diminished or destroyed.
    Microsoft employees and supporters are viewing these trials 
collectively as a battle they have fought hard to win. Like Jay Leno 
said one night in reference to a decision made during the trial 
(paraphrased): ``Finally the little guy comes out on top, 
right?!'' It should be noted that Leno was hired several years 
ago by Microsoft to help introduce Windows 95 (by using a popular 
and well-known television personality)...
    If the Department of Justice wishes to be viewed as weak-kneed 
and perhaps even serving of mostly corporate interests, then 
accepting the current proposal is the path to this public view.
    If, however, the Dept. of Justice wishes to be viewed as a 
respectable entity, unafraid of a challenge, and willing to stand up 
for that which is legally, morally, and ethically-correct, without 
regards for whether the criminal is an individual, a company, or a 
non-profit organization--in essence following the 
``justice is blind'' philosophy that law is thought to 
abide by--then I once again encourage harsher penalties for 
Microsoft. Thank you for your time.



MTC-00026600

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 00:44:04 -0800
To: [email protected]
From: mcvarish 
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the U.S. Department of Justice:
    In reference to the to the antitrust settlement between 
Microsoft Corporation, the Department of Justice, and nine states, I 
urge you to adopt the settlement. The terms of the settlement are 
very strict and provide more than enough punishment for Microsoft. 
To further punish Microsoft would be to further punish consumers, 
stockholders, Microsoft employees, and companies that provide 
material and services to Microsoft. Many thousands of people depend 
on Microsoft's functioning at maximum potential.
    Please, in all fairness, adopt the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Alice McVarish



MTC-00026601

From: Bridgewater Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was visiting at Netscape, as a customer, the day after they 
first met with Microsoft. There was no doubt that they had been 
surprised and somewhat taken aback with Microsoft's tone.
    Based on what we were told, Microsoft offered to partner with 
them and divide the world into PCs and non-PCs with Microsoft 
getting the PC world and Netscape getting what was left. Netscape 
says they turned them down and Microsoft left them with the 
impression that they would be put out of business. At that time and 
subsequently I believe that Netscape had a much clearer vision and 
was as interested in driving the Internet as they were in growing 
and making money. Microsoft, clearly, has no other interest than 
market domination and maximizing profits in any way they can. 
Microsoft has no interest in advancing the Internet or, indeed, any 
aspect of computer science, utilization, security or performance.
    Microsoft is not an engine of advancement or change. There is 
not one product or service they can point to and say they invented 
or developed it. There history has been to purchase or drive out of 
business any competitor and then blanket the market segment with 
proprietary code to prevent anyone else trying to enter that market. 
This is not a forward looking strategy--it is the road to 
stagnation. Established product lines do not move in new ways, they 
fester under an ever increasing load of new, largely useless, 
features: all the components of Microsoft Office fall in this 
category; Internet Explorer is well on the way; XP is not only 
enormous and slow, it comes with one of the most repressive 
licensing scheme since indentured servitude.
    But, it is Microsoft's arrogance and complete lack of ethics 
that has prompted me to write. The Justice Department, et. al. 
settlement left me speechless. No mention that Microsoft has been 
convicted of breaking the law (which was upheld on appeal). No 
mention of their bad faith in answering subpoenas or goading a 
Federal Judge into making non-judicial statements in a fit of pique. 
Indeed, someone from another planet who read this would wonder what 
the fuss was about.
    The idea of three people living and working at the Microsoft 
campus and keeping an eye on them is ludicrous on the face of it. 
How can they ever know what is going on?

[[Page 27841]]

Where is the restructuring that is clearly indicated from their 
actions? Where is any notion of making their former competitors 
whole? Where, for pity sakes, is any discouraging word?
    I think breaking the company up, opening up at least their 
interfaces so there can be some real possibility of competition and 
imposing some real punishments-- community service at a 
minimum-- will ever convince them that perhaps they have erred. 
Otherwise, they will simply have a giant celebration on the day this 
becomes final and laugh off the rest of the industry forever.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Bridgewater
    [email protected]
    IT Manager



MTC-00026602

From: Dream Fountain Support
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 2:32am
Subject: Netscape / Microsoft
    Gentlemen:
    I have been a professional web developer for 5 years. During 
this time I have used both Netscape and Internet Explorer. Netscape 
contends that Internet Explorer has gained the advantage by bundling 
their browser with their operating system.
    However, as a developer I must disagree. Netscape is simply an 
inferior product. Designers world-wide are constantly having to re-
write good code simply to accommodate the unusual characteristics 
encountered with the way Netscape displays. New technologies such as 
layers are not recognized by Netscape. As such, a perfectly 
acceptable design looks great in IE, but is not nearly as robust in 
Netscape. Some developers have simply given up on Netscape and now 
generate code designed only for IE, with a note on the page reading 
``best viewed with IE'' or ``not compatible with 
Netscape''. Trying to accomodate Netscape's shortcomings is 
costing companies large sums of money in wasted time and effort to 
support a poorly designed pro duct.
    It is not my intent to comment on the balance of the lawsuit as 
a whole, rather my opinion that Netscape was an inferior product 
several years ago, and their newest version is even worse. The 
browser war was simply won by the company with the best product.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Adelfson
    Dream Fountain Data Solutions
    Internet Solutions for Small Business
    947 E. Park Ave.
    Gilbert, AZ 85234
    www.dreamfountain.com
    (480) 813-7711



MTC-00026603

From: Bob Wieman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let me make clear at the first that I do not agree with the 
proposed final judgement as it stands.
    I would point out two issues:
    The definition of future Microsoft middleware products, outside 
those that have the same functions as the current Microsoft 
middleware products, requires that Microsoft has distributed the 
product separate from the operating system. If Microsoft developed a 
product to replace a non-Microsoft middleware product, and released 
it only with the operating system (potentially, the new OS release 
could just be inclusion of the product), this product would not 
qualify as a Microsoft Middleware Product, and therefore would not 
be subject to the access requirements of Section III.H.1, or the 
substitution of automatically launched middleware of Section 
III.H.2.
    Effectively, the commercial viability of a non-Microsoft 
Middleware Product is given a time horizon, determined by Microsoft, 
of the next OS release. At that point, Microsoft can implement a 
competing API, not bound by these subsections and therefore not 
necessarily removable or replaceable. A non-Microsoft Middleware 
Product in this situation will not pose the threat to the OS 
monopoly that it would have, absent this behavior by Microsoft to 
illegally maintain its monopoly.
    To repeat, the definition of Microsoft middleware products in 
the proposed final judgement is overly narrow, and therefore the 
proposed final judgment does not prevent the recurrence of one of 
Microsoft's exclusionary acts: the integration of a product 
competing with non-Microsoft middleware into Windows in a non-
removable way. The result would be an ever-expanding operating 
system, taking unto itself any functionality provided by competing 
middleware, to ensure that no competing middleware could claim usage 
share wide enough to erode the operating system monopoly.
    Secondarily, the question of whether ``tying'' a (non-
monopoly) product to a monopoly is itself anticompetitive under 
Section 1 of the Sherman Act is a question that I think strikes at 
the core of people's intuition regarding antitrust law, and a 
resolution of the question is in the public interest. Not only might 
the resolution modify the appropriate remedy in this case, but a 
precedent would be set to measure the behavior of this and other 
monopoly-holding corporations by.
    To sum up: I do not believe that this proposed final judgment 
prevents a recurrence of the illegal behavior it seeks to remedy. 
Further, I feel that disregarding the most interesting question of 
law does not serve the public interest. The people need to know if 
legislation is required to conform the law to our intent, and 
monopoly-holding corporations need to know what they may or may not 
do.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Bob Wieman
    [email protected]
    Office: Harrelson 381



MTC-00026604

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honorable Kollar-Kotally,
    I thank you for your time in reviewing my comments concerning 
the proposed final judgment against Microsoft.
    I have worked in the heart of Silicon Valley for over twenty 
years and have seen first-hand Microsofts spectacular growth and 
remarkable contributions to the computing world.
    I have also experienced firsthand how a monopolistic 
corporations anticompetitive behavior has caused inflated software 
pricing.
    I encourage you to find at a proper ruling that would accomplish 
the following:
    Prevent future intimidation in our free market not only by 
Microsoft but any other company by providing some type of 
enforcement policy that would truly work. I realize that this would 
be an extremely difficult task, but I have confidence in our 
American system.
    Design a proper punitive award that would reimburse everyone who 
has paid inflated pricing. Proof of purchase of products and 
licensing should be required in order to receive payment for the 
portion of the purchase price that is determined to be over and 
beyond what the competitive costs should have been. I strongly urge 
you to prevent a cash grab by the State governments and deny all 
such awards. If a state has purchased software, they should receive 
the same reimbursement of costs as any individual or corporation. 
Such a move would allow the monies returned to be put back into the 
economy by investments and additional jobs.
    Best Regards,
    Fred Hoot
    San Jose, CA
    [email protected]
    www.fredhoot.com



MTC-00026605

From: Rex Foy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to express my opinion that the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft, and the DOJ is unacceptable! The measures 
proposed are not sufficient a stand against Large monopolies like 
Microsoft. The only acceptable solution is to divide said monopolies 
into smaller, competing companies!
    Sincerely, Rex A. Foy
    401 W. Desert Ave.
    Gilbert AZ 85233



MTC-00026607

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I consider the proposed settlement, a reasonable compromise 
enhancing Sr. citizens (and all Americans) an easy access to the NET 
and innovative software programs......and thereby make their 
computer experience easier and enjoyable. Also, acceptance of the 
proposed settlement, should be a positive influence on the economy 
and diffuse our recession!!! Unless you're a lawyer...(the only ones 
to win from hereout) shut this off and lets get it on!!!
    D. J. Bodner

[[Page 27842]]



MTC-00026608

From: Bruce Gee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am writing this email because I oppose the proposed final 
judgment between Microsoft and the Department of Justice.
    Like most people using computers, I am a user of many Microsoft 
products. I have great appreciation for their products--they 
are generally very good. And I admire much of what Microsoft has 
done in advancing personal computing.
    But the end does not justify the means. That is why I oppose the 
proposed judgment. Microsoft got to their current dominant position 
with tactics that I believe (and I think the courts have found) are 
illegal. I think you have heard many of the examples, so I'll not 
re-hash them to you.
    Looking to the future, my overall concern is that Microsoft 
will, and has shown by its previous behavior, follow the law only in 
the most narrow definition to their favor. If given any loophole, 
they will find it, and will abuse the intent of the law. From what I 
can tell, the proposed judgment, while clearing stating an intent, 
leaves plenty of room that Microsoft will abuse.
    They will use their position in the desktop operating system to 
try to dominate other areas. This includes servers (Linux and 
Solaris), web services and content (.NET initiative), entertainment 
devices (games and TV), handheld computers (Palm), and countless 
other markets. That is not to say that these product/services will 
ultimately be bad--it will just eliminate other possible 
choices from developing fully. I believe that a competitive market 
benefits consumers by giving broader choices, better products and 
lower prices. The technology sector outside of the current Microsoft 
eco-system will gradually disappear if Microsoft is allowed to 
expand un-checked.
    In a large sense, we are already dependent on Microsoft on being 
a ``benevolent dictator'' in the desktop operating system 
and office productivity space. That is why it is critical to 
structure the proposed settlement so it does not let Microsoft make 
unlawful use their current dominant position to expand into other 
markets. We need innovation to come from lots of different sources, 
including Microsoft. Please make changes to the proposed judgment so 
it provides a level playing field for all players in a competitive 
marketplace.
    Best Regards,
    Bruce Gee
    [email protected]
    1305 Greenwood Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
    650-328-8091
    PS--I also own a small number of shares of Microsoft.



MTC-00026609

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Greetings. As an American I am concerned that the Microsoft case 
has gone on and on. It needs to be settled now and stop dragging it 
out and spending (wasting) tax payers money. The present agreement 
in the case does what needs to be done so let's finalize it and get 
on with the other jobs.
    Sincerely,
    Cash Godbold



MTC-00026610

From: Jon Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:55am
Subject: Microsoft Suit
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Although I am a long-time user of Microsoft products, I find I 
am alarmed at the stories I've heard of under-handed competitive 
practices, and the trend towards fee-based services one can see in 
the new XP line of products. At this pace consumers can expect to be 
subject to the same kind of abuse in the use of our computers as we 
now experience with local and long-distance telephone service where 
de-regulation has provided us with no real benefit.
    I offer one personal example of a company grown to large and too 
greedy to care about individual consumers: When I purchased 
Microsoft's PowerPoint 2000 software, it scrambled my installation 
of MS-Office 97. When I called Microsoft's technical support, I was 
told that the issue did not reside with the PowerPoint 2000 product, 
but with Microsoft Office 97...which they no longer supported. I 
protested that the Office 97 product was fine until the PowerPoint 
2000 installation, but was told if I wanted further help, it would 
cost me $35. I believe that a product costing roughly $250-500 
(depending on upgrade versus full version) should be supported when 
it misbehaves--certainly for more than 4 years. And--as a 
consumer and writer--I resent the special status accorded 
software ``engineers'' who are pushing us towards a system 
of hourly fees: no one has offered to pay writers every time their 
articles are read. Furthermore, I have become resentful of 
continually buying so-called ``upgrades'' to software 
which are more aptly called ``bug fixes''.
    I encourage you to take a hard look at this company and do your 
duty--provide a bulwark for the consumer against corporate 
greed and abuse. I grow tired of being nickel & dimed to death 
by companies grown too large to care about customer service. While 
Microsoft products are generally good--and certainly we need 
standards for PC operation--the consumer currently finds him/
herself with fewer choices than were available even a few years ago. 
In a market where consumers have no choice, it's up to the 
government to step in and make sure that choice and a free-market 
dynamic are restored.
    Thank you,
    Jon Anderson
    University of MN--CALA
    612.961.7440
    CC:Fred Newman



MTC-00026611

From: JobLeads
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. 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,
    Daniel Maddy
    Tigard, Oregon



MTC-00026612

From: GYoung
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:43am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    Microsoft has gotten away with too much and is out of control, 
please do not let Microsoft get away with just a mild slap on the 
hand. They have hurt too many companies and individuals. I know as I 
am one who they have relentlessly attack. We use to average $2.5 
million in annual sales with net profit of less than $30,000 after 
Microsoft's continued attack and negative campaign against us we 
sold less than $650,000 last year and had a net lost $664,000 which 
forced me into personal bankruptcy. As if that is not enough they 
are now demanding $1,000,000 from me and my company plus they want 
my company name and my web site to do what they wish, all because we 
do not follow their ``desires/demands''. I am too small to 
be able to afford to fight them in court. Is it not clear they are 
out to destroy who they perceive as a competitor? If you let them 
off too easily they will continue their evil ways. It is the small 
business man who is the real victim. If you would like more details 
of my case I will be happy to provide you with whatever you desire.
    Sincerely,
    Glenn Young 903-626-5317



MTC-00026613

From: Tony Silva
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:03am

[[Page 27843]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings.
    I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft case. Not only does the proposed 
settlement allow Microsoft to defraud the government by making 
reparation in software (for which the real cost is close to zero), 
but it compounds the problem that led to legal action, specifically, 
the unfair practices that led to the monopolization of the browser 
and software markets. ``Punishing'' Microsoft by allowing 
it to flood the schools with its software is a farce.
    Please, exercise reason and a sense of fairness in proposing a 
settlement that both punishes the corporation for its misdeeds and 
helps solve the problems its misdeeds have created.
    Tony Silva



MTC-00026615

From: Bryan Lamos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm pro-Microsoft, and I'll be happy when this is over with and 
Microsoft is allowed to continue to innovate and compete fairly. We 
need a law to stop competitors from filing frivolous lawsuits 
against each other!
    The following article does a succinct and accurate job of 
capturing exactly what is wrong with the high-tech industry today, 
specifically the ability of Microsoft's competitor's to attempt to 
thwart Microsoft's success by relying on our taxpayer-funded legal 
system: ``Netscape turned out to be a poor investment (its 
market share has plummeted to about 10 percent, compared with nearly 
90 percent for Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which, by the way, AOL 
chose as its online service's own browser). ...
    Speaking of consumers, I can't understand how they're hurt by a 
business strategy that offers browsers for free. Would 
consumers--who, after all, are the people who are supposed to 
be protected by antitrust laws--be happier if they had to pay 
$100 or $200 for a browser? Free software is hardly a new Internet 
idea; AOL continually offers ``upgrades'' to its own 
service for free. Is it unfairly competing?
    It's no coincidence that AOL's dramatic lawsuit comes just as a 
federal judge is deciding whether to bless a hard-won settlement, 
reached by nearly all the parties in the massive anti-trust suit 
against Microsoft. Nine attorneys general, among them America's top 
publicity-seekers, remain holdouts. They have asked, among other 
things, that Microsoft be forced to give away the Explorer source 
code. ...
    Instead of straightening out its business problems, AOL has 
decided to spend its time and effort filing lawsuits against tough 
competitors--a petty, distracting pursuit that won't help AOL 
or, for that matter, the U.S. economy, which depends on firms like 
Microsoft for the innovation necessary to bring about a technology 
revival.''
    Please read more at : http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/
techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-012302E, 
apparently the author feels the same way as the majority of America, 
the consumers, the real players in this contest. This is crazy!! AOL 
chooses Microsoft's browser as the browser technology for it's 
client viewer, basically giving an implicit admission that it is 
superior than Netscape, then goes on to buy the Netscape browser, 
then SUE Microsoft because their browser took market share from 
Netscape??!?!
    Bryan Lamos



MTC-00026616

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am exercising my Tunney Act right to comment on the proposed 
settlement. I do NOT believe this settlement accomplishes the goal 
of returning competition to the computer software markets now 
dominated by Microsoft. At a minimum, it must extend protection and 
rights to non-profit organizations as well as commercial for-profit 
companies.
    I support the appointment of Steve Satchell as one of the 
members of the enforcement committee.
    Larry Rosenblum
    Sunnyvale, California



MTC-00026617

From: Vasant Ramasubramanian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a tax paying citizen of the US, I find the DOJ's proposed 
agreements in the Antitrust case again Microsoft to be both 
inadequate and ineffective. The US government has expended a 
tremendous amount of tax payers'' money in this particular 
case. The findings of the Court of Appeals enumerates the crimes of 
Microsoft, yet the proposed action is equivalent to a ``slap on 
the wrist''. The proposed settlement is simply preposterous. 
It's quite sad that US government will ignore both it's own findings 
and clearly stated Antitrust laws. One has to wonder who the 
government is working for, the tax paying citizens who elect the 
officials, or the businesses that bribe the government? Given the 
current settlement, I think the answer is clear.
    Sincerely,
    Vasant Ramasubramanian.



MTC-00026618

From: Ron Hilton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    COMMENTARY ON PROPOSED MICROSOFT ANTITRUST SETTLEMENT:
    I have studied the various documents pertaining to the Microsoft 
antitrust case, including the complaint, the proposed settlement, 
and the competitive impact statement. In general, I believe that the 
settlement is a step in the right direction, but is far too ridden 
with loopholes to be effective as a practical remedy.
    To the extent that the settlement requires full disclosure of 
APIs and protocols, it represents a very satisfactory remedy. The 
Windows APIs and protocols have become a de-facto standard in the 
computing industry. Such standards are vital to the 
interchangeability of software components that must exist in order 
to enable consumer choice and true competition. However, when one 
company exercises complete hegemony over such a standard, and can 
unilaterally shape it to their advantage, with undisclosed 
interfaces that they alone are able to exploit, anticompetitive harm 
to the consumer is the inevitable result. Unfortunately, the 
settlement in its present form is too limited in scope with too many 
escape clauses to have any real remedial effect. In particular:
    1. Section III. D. allows Microsoft to evade full disclosure by 
requiring membership in the Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN) in 
order to receive the information. There is nothing to prevent 
Microsoft from imposing unreasonable fees or other restrictions on 
MSDN membership so as to deter a potential competitor from obtaining 
the information.
    2. Section III. J. 1. allows Microsoft to evade full disclosure 
in the name of ``security.'' Security that relies upon 
obscurity is no security at all. There is much greater security in 
having an open standard that can be scrutinized and critiqued by 
all, thereby identifying and eliminating whatever vulnerabilities 
may exist. Microsoft's dismal record on security speaks for itself 
on this point.
    3. Section III. J. 2. b) allows Microsoft to evade full 
disclosure by maintaining that a competitor has no ``reasonable 
business need'' for the information.
    4. Section III. J. 2. c) allows Microsoft to evade full 
disclosure by refusing to certify the ``authenticity and 
viability'' of a potential competitor. Microsoft cannot 
possibly be objective in making such a determination. The conflict 
of interest is simply too great.
    5. Section III. J. 2. d) allows Microsoft to evade full 
disclosure by imposing an arbitrarily onerous and expensive burden 
of proof of compatibility on a potential competitor.
    6. Section VI. J. and K. allow Microsoft to evade full 
disclosure by simply electing not to separately trademark a 
middleware product that utilizes the API or protocol in question. 
They can still use the trademarks ``Microsoft'' and 
``Windows'' in connection with the product without having 
to disclose the APIs or protocols in question.
    7. Section VI. N. allows Microsoft to evade full disclosure to 
competitors who have not already sold at least one million copies of 
a competitive product. This is a catch-22 which effectively prevents 
any small start-up from ever gaining a foothold in the Windows-
compatible marketplace in the first place.
    The bottom line is that under the proposed settlement, there are 
any number of ways in which Microsoft can easily evade full 
disclosure of the de facto standard Windows APIs and protocols which 
the industry as a whole needs in order to provide true consumer 
choice among competitive, fully compatible software products.
    Here is the remedy that I would propose instead:
    1. Microsoft must fully disclose all Windows APIs and protocols 
by making them freely accessible to the public via the Internet as 
of the date of the beta release of any software product that employs 
such APIs or protocols.

[[Page 27844]]

    2. Any competitor who extends or otherwise modifies the Windows 
APIs or protocols for their own product must likewise fully disclose 
such extensions or modifications by making them freely accessible to 
the public via the Internet as of the date of the beta release of 
any such software product.
    The second requirement above is an important one. It is designed 
to prevent the proliferation of multiple proprietary, incompatible 
variations of the Windows standard. That is what caused the 
fragmentation of the original Unix standard, as Unix competitors 
sought to ``lock in'' their customers in much the same way 
that Microsoft has done with the Windows standard. Only an open 
standard which is required to remain an open standard can provide a 
reliable foundation for innovation based on true merit that provides 
real choice to consumers in a fair and level competitive 
environment. Unix started out open but became proprietary. Windows 
started out proprietary, but must become open.
    Please note that I am not advocating that Windows become open 
source. The source code is Microsoft's intellectual property and 
should not be confiscated. Only the external interfaces (i.e. APIs 
and protocols) need to be fully opened up to the public.
    Thank you,
    Ron Hilton
    President, Platform Solutions, Inc.
    1250 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 210
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086-4027
    (408)730-6826



MTC-00026619

From: Richard Culbertson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has every right to give away their browser, on the 
other hand the Netscape browser is a poor piece of programming and 
should perhaps PAY us to use it.
    What this is amounting to is Bill Gates and Microsoft didn't pay 
enough ``shake-down and protection money'' to the 
politicians in Washington DC
    Get away from Microsoft.



MTC-00026621

From: Cynder Gray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:30am
Subject: 1984
    In 1984 Apple computer introduced the world to a new way of 
working with the computer with a now famous commercial.
    The commercial aired showing thousands of people dressed in gray 
clothing in a drab, industrial environment are taking instruction 
from a man on a TV screen. An athletic woman with a sledge hammer is 
chased by military police into a main viewing room where she throws 
the hammer into the screen effectively destroying it. Apple could 
not have come closer to telling the future. The images are not the 
same but the message is clear--Microsoft has taken over! 
Microsoft controls all components of technology. It will soon 
control access to the internet and eventually will hold information 
about all users with their new ``.net'' initiative. One 
company with so much control over how I work, what I view and how I 
use and store collateral material is beyond comprehension. Please, 
stop the monopoly. Break Microsoft up, force them to divest, 
possibly even make their file standards open source. Cynder Gray



MTC-00026622

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    Philip Duckham
    11610 Waterman Rd
    Brooklyn, MI 49230



MTC-00026623

From: Peter Au
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    All the law suits including DOJ's and state attorneys'' 
anti-trust suit and civil suits are full of contradiction, irony and 
hyprocrisy. On one hand Microsoft is accused of anti-trust violation 
monopolysing and overcharging consumers, and on the other hand was 
accused of lower pricing than competitors as a form of predatory 
pricing. Microsoft achieved 95% of the market through good and 
renovating products and competetive pricing, was accused of 
monopolyzing. Then no company should try to suceed because if you 
do, you are a monopoly. The objective of the Anti-trust Law is to 
prevent any company from dominating the market and gouging prices 
and thus do harm to consumers. However, Microsoft was accused of 
bundle products, selling them at lower prices or component such as 
browser free. I can't see how consumers could be harmed to have some 
free products or get a good deal in buying bundle of programs. DOJ 
do have the intention of vaguely protecting the consumers in the 
long run, but never directly place consumer immediate interest in 
the equation; is also presuming too much in assuming Microsoft will 
gouge prices in the future. Every body is innocent before proven 
guilty. The fact that Microsoft selling the browser program free 
greatly benefit consumers, and have greatly advance the popular use 
of internet that renovate this country and the world intellectually, 
culturally and economically. And now AOL who is charging consumer 
for using her service is suing Microsoft for harming Netscape. I 
wonder whether ``competition'' or ``benefit 
consumer'' has any meaning in this society. Any party loses a 
competition will feel unfair and wants a rematch in a so called 
``leveling field''.
    Parties who feel unfair may not be limited to Netscape. There 
are parties in this country and in history that were, unlike 
Netscape, arguably really being wronged. Slavery of the blacks, 
killings of American Indians, slaaughtering of south and central 
Americans by Spaniards, just to name a few. It would be great to 
have an equalizer so as to provide fairness to ALL companies, 
nations and people. Maybe we should all go back to Stone Age, which 
will be the ultimate equalizer. Of course we know that that is 
impossible, because the world moves on and keeps going forward. This 
``leveling the field'' idea is kike for us to go backward 
to the stone age. It is not progress, not advancement, not 
innovations; it is not an idea of civilization. The consumers will 
be harmed, the economy willbe harm, and our nation and people will 
be harmed. Then on the other end of the spectrum, civil suits are 
accusing Microsoft of overcharging their products. Of course we know 
that if microsoft lost this suit, each consumer user will get about 
$10, and millions of dollars will go the lawyers. The settlement of 
Microsoft to provide millions of dollars of computers and softwares 
to school was again hampered by selfish and self-serving objections. 
Certainly any companies are free to provide programs to our schools. 
One reality the nay-sayers, DOJ and state attorneys keep forgeting 
but really have to face is: Microsoft have achieve enough critical 
mass in competition and is been used by say 95% of software users. 
It has become a defacto standard. If we want our kids to learn 
softwares, they better learn microsoft's programs first, because 
they are the most popular ones. This is the system mostly sschools, 
offices and society. How are we going to stop the engine of progress 
and moving forward and level the field by pulling back Microsoft ? 
This is against consumers, against progress, against innovations and 
against the economy. I think the economy has been harmed enough by 
all these follies.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026624

From: Jarvis Cochrane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms Hesse,
    I have read with interest the documents related to the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft, and wish to submit the following 
comments: As an Australian IT professional I believe this case, and 
the proposed settlement, to have international significance; and 
that in this matter, as in many others, the United States will be 
setting a precedent or a standard that will be referred to by other 
nations.
    It is my understanding that the proposed settlement only has 
legal force within the

[[Page 27845]]

United States, and that nothing in the settlement prevents Microsoft 
from continuing its anti-competitive practices in other 
jurisdictions, or moving ``non-compliant'' operations 
offshore. I strongly approve of the provisions that require 
Microsoft to make the APIs and communications protocols of its 
software products available to other software developers. Microsoft 
have used proprietary APIs and communications protocols to prevent 
the interoperability of their software with other products. Apart 
from the anti-competitive nature of the practice, it has 
significantly increased the complexity and cost of multi-platform 
environments.
    I believe, however, that the provisions requiring Microsoft to 
make its APIs and communications protocols available to software 
developers do not go far enough to effectively ``level the 
playing field.'' My understanding of the proposed settlement is 
that some API or protocol specifications may be made available only 
to selected developers, or may not be made available at all where 
Microsoft can demonstrate that making such information available 
would present a risk to system security or intellectual property 
rights.
    As an IT support professional and software developer, I can see 
no justification other than commercial advantage,for not making the 
details of all APIs and communications protocols publically 
available at no cost. I strongly encourage you to consider such a 
measure as part of a revised settlement.
    I am concerned that appears to be no fine or other punitive 
measure imposed upon Microsoft, even though the company has been 
found guilty of breaching competition law, and has used its market 
and position and illegal business practices to generate unreasonable 
profits. There is also the matter of the ``hidden'' or 
``follow on'' costs borne by consumers, business and the 
IT industry as a consequence of Microsoft preventing the correct 
interoperability.
    As I have followed this case in the media, I have regularly 
noted that Microsoft has shown a lack of respect, perhaps even a 
contempt, for the legal and judicial process.
    For these reasons, I would respectfully suggest that it is 
appropriate and just for a large fine to be imposed upon Microsoft, 
such monies to be used for international charitable works. To be 
effective as a punitive measure, such a fine would obviously need to 
be in the order of some billions of dollars.
    In general terms, and in conclusion, I believe the proposed 
settlement addresses the relevant issues, but does not sufficiently 
restrict Microsoft, prevent Microsoft from pursuing alternative 
means to maintain monopoly power, or impose appropriate punitive 
damages on Microsoft.
    I would like to express my appreciation to the Department of 
Justice for pursuing this matter, and the hope that my comments will 
be of interest to you.
    Regards,
    Jarvis Cochrane
    [email protected]



MTC-00026625

From: bpsems
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:46am
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I believe that the Lawsuit against Microsoft by the Clinton 
Administration has been a complete waste of time and taxpayers 
money. Microsoft made computing possible for the individual and 
small businesess. The consumer has benefited from Microsoft 
products. Attached is my letter requesting that this lawsuit be 
settled under the terms agreed between the Dept. of Justice and 
Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Brian P. Seguin
    Professional Land Surveyor
    Professional Engineer
    3622 99th Street Southeast
    Everett, WA 98208
    January 26, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The antitrust lawsuit brought against Microsoft was unjustified 
and flawed. The dispute in my opinion arose due to 
competitors'' envy for their own lack of innovation and 
creativity. Microsoft has been the leading innovator of technology 
for over a decade. In the 80's when we lagged behind Japan in many 
industries, Microsoft developed a product that streamlined and made 
more effective many of our businesses. The company I worked for is a 
perfect example as it was able to use Microsoft software for its 
businesses.
    The terms of the settlement are harsh and seem to reflect the 
intense lobbying of Microsoft's competitors. Forcing Microsoft to 
give up internal interfaces and protocols, making them agree not to 
retaliate against other vendors, stipulating that they must grant 
computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to make 
it easier for non-Microsoft products to be prompted, the settlement 
also reflects lawmakers and politicians lack of concern for the 
public. This settlement only aims at giving competition an edge they 
did not have and could not attain on their own.
    Even though I think the settlement is unfair, I must support it 
because the alternative of further litigation would be too much for 
our weak economy. I urge your office to take a firm stance against 
the opposition and stop any further disputes. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Brian P. Seguin
    Professional Land Surveyor
    Professional Engineer



MTC-00026626

From: Scott Brylow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi folks,
    I'm a computer professional who started a web development 
company in 1994. I have run engineering organizations with multi-
million dollar budgets. I consult for companies with software 
problems and help them select vendors and solutions to address their 
business needs. And I'm disappointed with the current PFJ in the 
Microsoft antitrust trial.
    I have been doing a fair amount of reading and thinking on the 
problem, but not as much as many folks out there, so what I have to 
say will be compiled from a number of chats with friends. What I can 
tell you is that in my professional experience, Microsoft has not 
provided winning technology solutions--they have provided 
winning business solutions that can sometimes hold their own in a 
technological arena. By virtue of the results of the trial, it is 
clear that at least some of those successes were due to clear 
antitrust law violations. Poor technology choice presents a great 
risk to the large number of businesses out there who are more 
dependent on information technology (IT) than ever before. It's a 
huge economic risk in the field that is arguably a significant 
economic engine for our country.
    In that case, it is critical for the economic security of this 
country that Microsoft --not-- be left in a position to 
continue their anti-competitive behavior.
    One strikingly visible difficulty with the proposed remedy is 
the lack of provision for free software vendors to gain relief from 
the monopolistic behavior of Microsoft. In my experience as a 
technology professional, I know that these products, whatever their 
source, have now earned a place in the IT platform of many large 
companies. Ask IBM and HP, users of Linux. As the many WWW sites 
using Apache as a web server or Perl to run scripts. And there are 
many more similar open source products used throughout the 
enterprise--sendmail, samba, jakarta, etc.
    Please, please reconsider the sections of the proposed remedy 
(esp. sections III D and III J 2) and strengthen them to ensure that 
the open source community--providers of some extremely 
competitive software available for many specific tasks that either 
competes directly with Microsoft (Apache is the strongest competitor 
to their IIS webserver) or acts as an ISV working off Microsoft 
interfaces and at risk under the proposed remedy for that reason 
(e.g. samba).
    Thank you for your hard and positive work to date. I urge you to 
complete the difficult task of crafting a remedy with the same 
thoroughness you brought to the prosecution of the case to date.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Scott M. Brylow
    Independent Technology Management Consultant



MTC-00026627

From: Larry Israel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:50am
Subject: Microsoft case
    U.S. Dept. of Justice:
    I hope the DOJ breaks Microsoft into smithereens. They certainly 
deserve it. In fashioning the remedy, I very much hope the DOJ will 
look toward the open source software movement for guidance with this 
case. As society will increasingly depend on computers and the 
Internet as the primary information infrastucture, operating systems

[[Page 27846]]

are very important public resources. Non-proprietary, standards-
compliant systems are very much in the public interest, allowing 
interoperability amongst the various hardware and software 
components of this infrastucture. Rather than the dominant profit-
making company working to bring as much business as possible to 
their own proprietary implementations, everyone is better served by 
free, open source software, right down to the operating system. For 
many years, open source software has given us some of the most 
important innovations, developed by professionals who are abundantly 
donating their hard work in the public interest. At minimum, 
Microsoft must have the operating system software split from the 
rest of the company. Similarly, Microsoft ownership and broadcast of 
content should be split from all of their software products. Without 
that, in the future they threaten to control the entire broadcast 
infrastructure, from media content creation, to broadcast, to the 
delivery system in our homes. Certainly Prince William makes no 
secret of his plans for domination of everything he's able to get 
his hands on. Make them pay for their unethical, heavy-handed and 
illegal business practices. Stop Microsoft now, while you can.
    Larry Israel
    Santa Cruz, CA



MTC-00026628

From: Bill Wodarczyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    William Wodarczyk
    62 N. Shaddle Avenue
    Mundelein, IL 60060
    January 18, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr.. Ashcroft:
    With 40 years experience in the world-leading American computer 
software industry, mostly in ``big iron'' IBM mainframes, 
I feel I am qualified to comment on the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. 
I am reminded of the eighteen-year-long antitrust case against IBM, 
which at some points, severely damaged that company and held back 
progress in American industry. Bill Gates has earned his success in 
a highly competitive industry. When IBM's original personal 
computer, the ``PC'' was released the MS-DOS of 
Gates'' Microsoft became the dominant among several operating 
systems because of a lower price, attention to customers'' 
desires and a dogged search for useful innovations. Since 
Microsoft's Windows was introduced, it has competed with the Apple 
Macintosh for ease of use. However, Windows has been a part of a 
vibrant, diverse, and experimental PC community, while Apple has 
held its intellectual cards very close to the vest, both for 
software and for hardware. In this competition, Microsoft's 
software, combined with hardware from many, many manufacturers got 
the nod of more consumers. That is simply American free enterprise. 
In the fast changing software industry Microsoft will only maintain 
its position against erstwhile competitors, like Apple, the Unix's, 
Linux, BeOS, Palm, and emerging companies by attention to business 
fundamental and relentless innovation. The lawsuit is like ankle 
weights to handicap the best ballerinas, to stifle a determined 
spirit. Still, I prefer my free enterprise ---- free.
    The ability of computers to work together is crucial to the 
effectiveness and efficiency of an enterprise, and, now with the 
Internet, the whole computing world. Interoperability through 
compatibility is much more efficient and reliable than translations, 
emulations, work-arounds, and patch-up-jobs.
    By opening up both Microsoft's Windows programs and its business 
practices, the settlement should provide the technical and corporate 
interoperability to furnish a much-needed boost for the American 
computer industry. Internal interfaces and native server 
interoperability protocols for Microsoft'' s Windows programs 
will be revealed, contracts made non-exclusive, retaliation for 
promoting non-Microsoft products prohibited, uniform price and terms 
lists to large computer makers become non-negotiable, addition and 
removal of programs integral to Windows made easy. Competitors will 
benefit. Microsoft will be able to hold on if it can work with the 
industry and continue to innovate. The settlement is about as good 
as could be expected.
    I appreciate your work to see the settlement reached. I would 
appreciate your continued leadership to see that the settlement is 
approved by the federal judge and implemented. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    William Wodarczyk



MTC-00026629

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:03am
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,
    Bernice Kleiman
    4077-72 Porte de Palmas
    San Diego, CA 92122-5142



MTC-00026630

From: joe skerik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-00
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    The following is my commentary on the proposed settlement 
between the United States Department of Justice and Microsoft 
solicited under the Tunney Act.
    I believe that the settlement proposal is lacking in substance, 
and cannot effectively address the items which it is claimed to 
provide relief for. I am in complete agreement with everything which 
I have read published by Dan Kegel on this topic at this web 
address: www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html.
    In summary, I would like to register my disagreement with the 
proposal. Thank you for reviewing this and all comments.
    Joe Skerik
    P.O. Box 1741
    Round Mountain, Nevada 89045
    [email protected]



MTC-00026631

From: Haden E Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Seniors Coalition strongly believes that the proposed 
settlement offers a reasonable compromise.
    Respectfully,
    Haden E. Rogers
    9804 Kernville Drive
    Las Vegas, NV 89134



MTC-00026632

From: Claudio Friederich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The United States Department of Justice and eighteen state 
attorneys general have joined in suing Microsoft Corporation for 
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Recently, the Department of 
Justice and nine state attorneys general have reached a settlement 
agreement with Microsoft. Under the Tunney Act, the Department of 
Justice is seeking public comment on the settlement.
    For many reasons, I am convinced that this entire lawsuit has 
been, from the beginning, unfair, unjust, and enormously damaging, 
not just to Microsoft, but to countless people, both in the United 
States and abroad, and to our economy. The settlement terms would 
allow the corporate structure of Microsoft to remain intact, and 
permit Microsoft to remain in control of its intellectual property, 
and the source code for the products it depends on. The terms of the 
settlement focus on Microsoft's business relationships with OEMs, 
and the terms of Microsoft's licensing agreements with them, rather 
than on its organizational structure and the nature of the 
technology itself. Therefore, its impact on Microsoft's products and 
technologies, and the many who depend on them, will be minimized. As 
such, it is an excellent opportunity to end this ruinous litigation, 
and the harm that it is doing to the American

[[Page 27847]]

people, and to our economy. The reasons that this litigation is so 
harmful are many.
    As a consumer, I feel this lawsuit is misguided. The lawsuit 
alleges that Microsoft Corporation has harmed consumers by illegal 
use of monopoly power. By my own choice, I spend about a thousand 
dollars a year on Microsoft software. I could just as easily have 
bought software from other vendors. Often software from competing 
vendors is significantly more expensive than software from 
Microsoft. Often Microsoft's software is significantly easier to use 
than competitors'' products, or offers more capabilities, and 
versatility. I therefore fail to see how I have been harmed.
    As a citizen, I understand and realize that everyone, including 
corporations, must abide by the laws, whatever the consequences. 
However, there is nothing that Microsoft Corporation has done that 
other large companies in the United States do not routinely do. 
Large mergers and large, high-stakes investments take place so 
routinely that they go unnoticed by most people. Corporate rivals 
cut deals with each other all the time for licensing of technology, 
advertising space, and endorsements. Companies make deals with 
others all the time to get favorable pricing and market exposure 
from each other and effectively handicap rivals. But only Microsoft 
Corporation is being sued for such activities.
    As an employee of a software producer, I understand the hurt 
companies feel when their products, developed at great expense in 
time and capital, are shouldered out of the marketplace. I 
understand that companies such as Netscape and Apple, whose products 
lost to Microsoft Corporation, feel very bitter about it. However, 
losing in such a manner is the risk all players in a free market 
economy must accept. Rivals in the marketplace always try to best 
one another, in the quest to succeed, and survive. Some will win, 
but some will lose. Going into business means you must, right from 
the beginning, face up to your rivals. Nobody is given a 
``grace period'' in the marketplace. As a professional 
software developer of Windows software, my success is directly tied 
to the success of the Windows platform. Every new feature added to 
the operating system is one new feature available to developers of 
Windows software. It is precisely such additions that have enabled 
independent developers to create more powerful software with greater 
ease. Microsoft Corporation has been accused of 
``bundling'' its Web browser into the operating system to 
squash competition. However, it has been this ``bundling'' 
that has allowed developers of Windows software, without any 
additional costly tools, without any additional software the end 
user had to buy, to add rich Internet capability to their software. 
With one stroke, all the capabilities of the Internet were opened up 
to all Windows developers, not just those investing in costly 
additional tools or those developing the functionality on their own, 
at a great expense in time. This has significantly contributed to 
Windows'' success, both for end users and developers: enabling 
everyone to do more with less. It has often been pointed out that 
Microsoft Windows runs ninety percent of all personal computers. 
Many developers of software are developing for the Windows Platform. 
In addition, a great many system integrators, technical support 
workers, Web site designers, and countless other technology workers 
our economy is increasingly depending on are involved with the 
Windows platform. If the Windows platform is harmed, all of these 
people, both in the United States and abroad, will be similarly 
harmed. All of the remedies that have been proposed as alternatives 
to the settlement would hurt the Windows platform and all those 
involved with it.
    Some are seeking to break up Microsoft into separate companies, 
one for operating system products, one for desktop applications, and 
one for Internet products and services. As mentioned previously, the 
ability both to integrate products, and allow them to seamlessly 
interoperate, is precisely what has helped to make Windows and its 
software both powerful and easier to use for increasingly 
sophisticated tasks. Such a proposed ``remedy'' would, by 
definition, destroy many possibilities for such integration.
    Others have proposed breaking Microsoft into several equal 
parts, each with the rights to all products. This would be a 
catastrophe. Instead of one, there would be multiple versions of 
each Microsoft product. They would evolve separately, and inevitably 
develop differing feature sets, and requirements, and 
incompatibilities would emerge. How is the consumer supposed to 
choose which version to buy? Developers would have to worry about 
not one, but several, Windows, and so development and technical 
support and system administrative costs would skyrocket. 
Incompatibility issues would multiply, and computer use would 
needlessly become much more complicated. It has been suggested that 
the source code for Windows should be freely available to the 
public, allowing any company to develop its own versions of Windows. 
This would lead to an unlimited number of Windows, which would 
ultimately evolve differing feature sets, leading to the same 
disaster as described previously. The Unix operating system, whose 
source code is freely available, is a case in point. There are many 
``flavors'' of Unix, each of which is supposed to be 
compatible. But in practice none of them are fully compatible.
    Regulations defining what features Microsoft Corporation may and 
may not add to which products have been proposed. However, as 
previously mentioned, the integration of features into the operating 
system is one of the key aspects of Windows that have made it 
successful, and increased the abilities of its users with lower 
costs. The lawsuit against Microsoft threatens to harm much more 
than Microsoft Corporation. It threatens to harm the many people who 
use, depend on, and have succeeded because of the Windows platform. 
It threatens the consumer, the very group the lawsuit purports to 
protect. It already has done harm through large amounts of taxpayer 
money spent on it, technological stock market losses that arose 
directly and indirectly from it, and delays in the release of 
critically needed software. Therefore, as a consumer, as a software 
developer, and as a Windows user, I implore all those involved to 
take the opportunity the settlement offer presents to end this 
lawsuit, before it does any more harm.
    Sincerely yours,
    Claudio
    Friederich
    [email protected]



MTC-00026633

From: James E Huninghake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 27, 2002
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have been deeply distressed by the Department of Justice's 
legal attacks on Microsoft, a private company that has set the 
standard for quality products at reasonable prices. I am convinced 
Microsoft has played a large part in the productivity increases in 
the United States the last 5 years that have raised our standard of 
living to a level that makes us the envy of the entire world. I can 
think of nothing but jealousy and greed being behind the legal 
attacks that I am convinced was started with the encouragement of 
Microsoft competitors. Don?t we have better things to do in this 
country than attack one of the most successful and innovative 
companies in American history? Lets get back to fighting our real 
enemies, both at home and abroad ?poverty, poor public education, 
crime, the Taliban, etc. . I shutter to think of what would come of 
these if we directed the time and resources used in this frivolous 
case towards these true threats to the American way of life.
    If the DOJ can do this to Microsoft, who is next? Get over the 
success of Microsoft and get on to other real issues that challenge 
this country.
    James E. Huninghake
    4012 Fordham Drive NE
    Minneapolis, MN. 55421



MTC-00026634

From: Janice Holder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the terms of the proposed antritrust settlement 
between DOJ, 9 states and Microsoft are reasonable and fair to all 
concerned. Too much time and money have already been utilized by the 
parties fighting this.
    I trust the Court will adopt the agreement and end the conflict.
    C.Janice Holder



MTC-00026635

From: Pamela Rosengren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A weak stance regarding the crimes committed by Microsoft will 
not help America's standing internationally. With this proposed 
settlement America appears to be saying to the international 
community ``crime is OK if it is done by rich white 
Americans''. At the same time by its actions elsewhere America 
apears to be clearly saying ``crime is not OK if it is done by 
the

[[Page 27848]]

poor, by non-whites, by non-Americans''. Think carefully before 
ratifying this extremely weak settlement. America needs all the 
credibility it can get and this is not the way to achieve it.
    The consequences of this settlement will be felt worldwide. The 
Microsoft monopoly is dangerously close to being totalitarian, and 
it appears to edge closer all the time for example its strategies to 
control the internet. It is difficult to understand how a nation 
which champions democracy and capitalism will escape the 
consequences of turning a blind eye to the predatory activities of 
this corporation. America will lose its technological edge, lose its 
lead in the international software market, lose the confidence of 
other governments (this is happening now), and lose much of the 
freedom its people enjoy. I am basing these comments on statements 
by experts in technology and economics, not people who are 
politically biased.
    Pam Rosengren



MTC-00026636

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:48am
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,
    Jeffrey Jacobs
    10333 NW 43
    Coral Springs, FL 33065-2364



MTC-00026637

From: Helmut Kurt Burri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
    I write to you on the subject of the the United States'' 
civil anti-trust case against the Microsoft Corporation. As you 
know, on November 6 2001, the United States Department of Justice 
and Microsoft filed a proposed settlement.
    This settlement was not aimed to find remedies for Microsoft 
infringements of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Rather it is a 
short term political and economical decision made by number of U.S. 
states. The decision to settle was not based on having found 
suitable remedies, that would stimulate innovation and competition 
in the computer industry nor to deprive Microsoft of its illegal 
gains. It was sadly driven by a conservative administration in the 
White House, with strong ties to corporate lobby groups. Microsoft 
was the second largest campaign donor the last election, giving $4.3 
million to both parties, the largest share of this amount going to 
the Republicans. It now seems that Microsoft's stratagem has 
successfully divided the coalition of states and may have even 
bought the submission of the U.S. president to its will. The 
decision to settle well short of suitable remedies was also taken by 
states seeing that in slower economic times, their constituents may 
not look favorably upon a continued and expensive legal battle. Even 
if the possible long term economic benefits would out-weigh the cost 
of continued litigation in the immediate future.
    The facts have been laid down by District Judge Thomas Penfield 
Jackson in his final judgment. That Microsoft violated the Sherman 
Act, the nation's anti-trust law, through the use of its monopoly on 
the Windows personal computer operating system to stifle 
competition. Microsoft in so doing extended its reach into new areas 
as in the case of the Netscape Browser.
    This is a practice Microsoft continues to engage in with its 
latest update to its monopoly product called WindowsXP, by 
``bundling'' Windows Media Player with it. This tactic is 
aimed at Windows Media Player's competitors; Real Player by Real 
Networks and QuickTime by Apple Computers. These two products are 
the current leaders in digital movie streaming.
    MSN Messenger is another product which is now also bundled on 
all WindowsXP operating systems and all copies of Microsoft OfficeX 
for Apple Mac OSX operating system. This results in MSN Messenger 
unfairly competing with AOL's instant messenger application. The 
detrimental effect on consumer choice by such actions is something I 
am sure you are aware of.
    Microsoft continues to engage in practices which have been the 
focus of the anti-trust action brought upon them and subsequently 
found guilty of. It has shown that it has no intent at regulating 
its own actions, let alone ever admitting any form of guilt. 
Microsoft at times displays an arrogant annoyance that any one ever 
challenges their might and its innate right to do as it sees fit. 
This is regardless of good moral and ethical business practices and 
the law under which it must perform it's business.
    Microsoft has often been described as an amoral organization, 
that will not seek to rectify the error of its ways. It will not 
heed unless you utilize the power invested in you, given to you by 
the citizens of the United States. I thus ask that you carefully 
consider the objections of the nine outstanding states and find 
stronger remedies that will accomplish the goals, as they were set 
out in the U.S. Court of Appeals:
    (1) to prohibit the illegal conduct and similar conduct in the 
future,
    (2) to spark competition in the computer industry.
    (3) to deprive Microsoft of its illegal gains.
    All of this should be resolved as quickly as possible in the 
public's best interest as well as to prevent Microsoft further 
crippling of the computer hardware and software industry.
    I sympathize with your position You are faced with decisions 
that will have momentous consequence for decades to come. You will 
define the world that you and I will live in and that our grand 
children will seek, to enjoy the same freedoms that we should never 
take for granted, for fear of losing these very freedoms.
    Yours Truly
    Helmut Kurt Burri
    Mook Media--Director
    Sydney Australia



MTC-00026638

From: Daniel Dreier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am a network administrator and software developer at 
Verinform, a medical database software company. As we use both 
Microsoft Windows and Linux operating system based computers, I have 
a number of concerns about the proposed United States vs. Microsoft 
settlement.
    My primary concern is that the proposed settlement does not 
address the very significant issue of file format documentation and 
compatibility. The problem we face at Verinform is that Microsoft 
uses a proprietary and undocumented format for the popular Outlook 
email program, a component of the Microsoft Office application 
suite.
    Our work requires that we maintain a task list of to-do items, 
and that multiple employees be able to share these lists. 
Microsoft's Outlook provides an excellent method of doing this. 
Since Microsoft does not make public the format in which 
``Task'' list items are transmitted via email, we are 
forced to use Outlook on all of the desktop computers in the company 
which need to use the to-do list.
    Microsoft does not produce Outlook for the Linux operating 
system platform. We must therefor use Microsoft Windows, a seperate 
and unrelated product, in order to use the to-do list.
    If the settlement forced Microsoft to release to the public, to 
competitors, and to the Linux community the format in which Outlook 
transmits this information, then a competing product could be 
created for the Linux operating system. Without a competing product, 
Microsoft has no incentive to release Outlook for the Linux 
platform; to do so would weaken their stronghold on the Windows 
operating system monopoly.
    I am also concerned about the issue of enforcement. Although the 
settlement provides for a committee with investivative powers, this 
committee has no enforcement powers. Microsoft has demonstrated in 
the past that they are willing to use a lawsuit as a delay during 
which to exploit a monopoly. For example, Microsoft was taken to 
court on the issue of having used monopolistic powers to unlawfully 
give their Internet Explorer product an advantage over Netscape's 
web browser. By the time that the lawsuit had finished, Microsoft's 
Internet Explorer had become the defacto standard on the

[[Page 27849]]

consumer desktop. Regardless of the outcome of settlement, Internet 
Explorer will continue to be the leading web browser. There are no 
serious competitors.
    Microsoft cannot be allowed to simply ignore decisions of the 
court, counting on the slow pace of the legal system and the appeals 
process to protect them. Although I would favor a breakup to force 
compliance, I understand that this is not generally considered to be 
a realistic measure to take. I feel that the currently proposed 
settlement will allow Microsoft to use loopholes to evade the intent 
of the settlement and simply ignore any elements of the settlements 
that cannot be otherwise evaded.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Dreier
    Director of Network Operations
    Verinform, LLC.
    [email protected]
    (503)246-2934
    7037 SW 54th Ave
    Portland, OR. 97219-1340



MTC-00026639

From: Chuck Pliske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:16am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear folks,
    I am writing to indicate my disapproval of the PFJ against 
Microsoft. As a 30 year computing professional, I have observed 
firsthand the effects of Microsoft's monopoly on the world of 
computing, and I believe that the proposed Judgement will do little 
or nothing to prevent future abuses by Microsoft.
    Thanks,
    Chuck Pliske
    Seawell Microsystems
    Seattle, WA 98166



MTC-00026640

From: Helmut Kurt Burri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
    ``The price of freedom is eternal vigilance'' against 
those who see our will and our innate rights as a hindrance that 
must be overcome. So that thee may subjugate us under their 
domination. We must always make it clear to all that we will not 
tolerate those who try to decrease our freedom, and take away our 
choices. We must fight those who corrupt and circumvent the process 
of law. And do so with impunity, as if thee are beyond the reach of 
the justice. And the eyes of the people, that the law proclaims to 
serve. The threat that Microsoft poses, is not confined to within a 
single nations border. Rather Microsoft is aiming to control, the 
links that cross these borders, and the very connections that binds 
one human being with another.
    It is thus vital to push forward with, vigorous prosecution of 
Microsoft. Regardless off the weakness of some in the challenge 
posed in the defense of democracy.
    Helmut Kurt Burri
    Mook Media--Director
    Sydney Australia
    ``The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to 
hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think 
differently.'' (Nietzsche)



MTC-00026641

From: Shawn Lahr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:22am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    One example of Microsoft's detrimental business 
practices--for consumers--is what they have done to Web 
TV. What started out as a promising advancement for web access in 
the mid ``90s--especially for those who didn't want to buy 
a computer in order to explore the world wide web--was snuffed 
out when Microsoft bought WebTv and then did not develop it in any 
way. It is years behind in its non ability to incorporate Java and 
Shockwave technologies. A promising technology that could have 
challenged Microsoft Window's utility--or Apple, or IBM for 
that matter--was bought by Microsoft in order that it could be 
controlled and not allowed to develop into something would have put 
the web at the finger tips of millions of people. Microsoft saw a 
threat and eliminated it. This is just one of many examples of what 
Microsoft has done to STIFLE competition. Technology suffers. And 
access for many is still out of reach. The penalty for monopolizing 
a market should be stiff. It should not further benefit the 
criminal--by establishing a more powerful position in the 
education market, for example. thank you for your time,
    sincerely,
    Shawn L. Lahr



MTC-00026642

From: Gareth Paxton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam
    As a BeOS user in the UK I am all too aware of the microsoft 
stranglehold on the IT industry as a whole.
    The most worrying part of the problem was the OEM bootloader 
licence and its clasification as a trade secret. OEMs were obliged 
to refuse complimentary operating systems but were unable to offer 
reasons. This situation is resonant of certain device manufacturers 
who are ``unable'' to release the information needed for 
support on non MS platforms, for no apparent reason.
    This is most applicable to ``winmodems'' which cut 
Linux and BeOS off from the net--where all the tech support is. 
MS would have to licence the Windows API to manufacturers, and could 
include a non disclosure clause to prevent support on other 
platforms. With ``trade secrets'' as they are we may never 
know.
    The Legal situation is prohibitive and has held the IT industry 
back for years, where the richest corps with the best lawyers can 
cripple the competition. Advanced, faster, more reliable and free 
operating systems. Bear that in mind next time your PC 
crashes--how would you feel if your windows box was in control 
of a life support machine? I would sleep easy if it was my BeOS box.
    Dear Sir/Madam
    As a BeOS user in the UK I am all too aware of the microsoft 
stranglehold on the IT industry as a whole. The most worrying part 
of the problem was the OEM bootloader licence and its clasification 
as a trade secret. OEMs were obliged to refuse complimentary 
operating systems but were unable to offer reasons. This situation 
is resonant of certain device manufacturers who are 
``unable'' to release the information needed for support 
on non MS platforms, for no apparent reason.
    This is most applicable to ``winmodems'' which cut 
Linux and BeOS off from the net--where all the tech support is. 
MS would have to licence the Windows API to manufacturers, and could 
include a non disclosure clause to prevent support on other 
platforms. With ``trade secrets'' as they are we may never 
know.
    The Legal situation is prohibitive and has held the IT industry 
back for years, where the richest corps with the best lawyers can 
cripple the competition. Advanced, faster, more reliable and free 
operating systems. Bear that in mind next time your PC 
crashes--how would you feel if your windows box was in control 
of a life support machine? I would sleep easy if it was my BeOS box.
    Thanks
    Gareth



MTC-00026643

From: O (only) W WILSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:27am
Subject: RE: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    JANUARY 27, 2002
    4:25 AM
    I AM CONCERNED THAT THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT BE COMPLETED AS PER 
AGREED. CONTINUED CHANGING AND COURT DECREE WILL ONLY LENGTHEN THE 
PROCESS AND CAUSE FURTHER PROBLEMS WITH OUR NATION'S ECONOMY, THE 
SUCCESS OF A COMPANY, AND THE AVAILABILITY OF SOFTWARE/HARDWARE FOR 
THE COMPUTING PUBLIC.
    SINCERELY,
    O W WILSON, ([email protected]).



MTC-00026644

From: Robert L. Barnhart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop spending taxpayers money on this lawsuit which will only 
hurt consumers in the end.



MTC-00026645

From: Allene R Wahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You must leave the amazing Microsoft alone. Don't let those 
special interests defeat the public interest.
    Allene R. Wahl, Ph.D., C.N.C.
    9746 W. Reeves Ct.
    Franklin Park, IL 60131
    Ph. (847) 678-5934 e-mail: [email protected]
    True cause of immune epidemic:

[[Page 27850]]

    http://members.tripod.com/immune--disorders/
index.html



MTC-00026646

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:46am
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,
    gail blissitt
    324 merkle norman, OK 73069-6430



MTC-00026647

From: Rick Schaller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:49am
Subject: microsft settlement
    Time to settle this matter in the manner proposed by Microsoft 
and the DOJ. More delay will continue to be a drag on the economy 
and further innovation in the industry. Anything more is just 
political and to siphon out money to the lawyers inthe case.



MTC-00026648

From: Dave Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: US Dept. of Justice
    Attn: Antitrust Division
    Re: Proposed Final Judgement in Microsoft case
    Let me first take a moment to introduce myself. I have been a 
professional software developer for over 20 years and am currently 
Vice President of Software Development at a local startup company in 
San Diego. I have never been employed, either directly or 
indirectly, by Microsoft, by any company closely affiliated with 
Microsoft, any of its competitors involved in this case, by the U.S. 
or state governments, nor by any group tending to take a strident 
view of the case (e.g. Linux vendors). In the course of my career I 
have developed software for both Microsoft OSes and other non-
Microsoft platforms ranging from DEC VAX and PDP-11 to very small 
embedded systems. Furthermore, I have no personal relationship with 
any party involved in the case.
    I have followed the course of this case (and indeed the previous 
case involving Windows 95) with somewhat detached interest, until 
recently when the proposed final judgement was published. Even 
though a principal finding of the trial court--that Microsoft 
has used illegal means to sustain its monopoly in operating 
systems--has been upheld on appeal, I can find nothing in the 
proposed Final Judgement that imposes an actual penalty for this 
violation of law. In addition, I do not believe that the proposed 
conduct remedies are useful, given that the Consent Decree in the 
previous case appears to have had no effect in deterring the 
offenses that are now the subject of the present case. The proposed 
Final Judgement contains only a section entitled ``Prohibited 
Conduct'', and the remainder of the document is concerned with 
enforcement procedures, termination, and the like. There is nothing 
resembling a penalty. In effect, the settlement amounts to the 
command, ``don't do it again'', despite the fact that 
consumers have suffered massive tangible economic harm, and that the 
market has suffered more intangibly from the presence of an illegal 
monopolist.
    Attempting to make some kind of estimate of harm to consumers, 
suppose that the monopoly has been illegally maintained for 5 years. 
In that time, roughly 100 million licenses of various releases of 
Windows have been sold. Let us further estimate that the average 
effective price to consumers through OEM PC sales has been 
(conservatively) around $50, and that the absence of competitors has 
caused that price to be $10 higher than it would have been had there 
been no violation of the Sherman Act.
    On this estimate, the approximate direct economic harm to 
consumers is in the vicinity of $1 billion. Of course there is a 
considerable error bar on this estimate as the impact of the illegal 
behavior is somewhat difficult to quantify, but the essential point 
is that the harm is certainly enormous and that Microsoft has 
profited directly from illegal practices.
    Given the nature of the case and the existence of ill-gotten 
profits, an appropriate penalty would be a substantial economic one. 
I believe that a large cash fine is in order, and if calculated 
properly would cause sufficient discomfort at Microsoft to provide a 
real disincentive to continuing the behaviors it has been found to 
have committed.
    That the proposed Final Judgement contains no actual penalty 
whatsoever in light of this level of harm is, in my opinion, 
patently contrary to the public interest, and I therefore urge the 
court to reject it as not being in the public interest, as the court 
is empowered to do. The government has proven its case, and the 
public is entitled to something better than a glorified restraining 
order.
    Regards,
    David B. Cook
    7866 Hemphill Drive
    San Diego, CA 92126



MTC-00026649

From: Info 4 SYNass.NET
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:57am
Subject: Crack M$'s monopoly
    Hello,
    I believe ``American Law & Justice'' must be blind 
and deaf ... ... or there is a big corruption by its political elite 
in the case of Microsoft ;-((
    In my eyes: M$ plays a very tricky game ... ... not paying 
respect to their customers nor the law. Not only this: As a 
monopolist it cheats and maltreats its customers.
    They do not fulfil their obligations to customers needs ... ... 
they are caring their own cashcow and hide bugs and errors. They are 
placing ``Roadblockers'' to get their case running into 
hell ... ... if this happens: we'll have hell on earth: M$ = the 
biggest IT dictator affecting the every business around the whole 
earth !
    A product having a market share more than 51% needs special 
observation including its companies practices ! A company having a 
product with a market share more than 66 % needs a mandatory break 
into independent (NO management buyouts) smaller units !! America 
and the world is fighting against terrorism ...
    ... M$'s monopoly is a kind of terrorism too: a FATAL economic 
terror: They have killed so many small but very good companies and 
products ... ... not only but also its working places and many human 
existencies. Blue eyes are beautiful ...
    ... but being blue-eyed to M$ is fatal for us all !! Mister B. 
G. may be a brave boy and son of his parents ... ... together with 
his company's gang he is a wolve in sheep fur ;-( FINE it PAINFULL 
with a sensitive very big money by CASH ! CRACK it into minimum 3 
companies like:
    1) Operating Systems
    2) Application Software
    3) Services (ASP, ISP and Joints like Telecom, and others) ...
    ... these could / should be cracked in perhaps more than only 
one unit ! DO it ASAP ... ... stop the M$ GAME ... ... before 
justice and law become inbelievable and looses its power against M$ 
in its worldwide cheaty, tricky monopoly game !!!
    Kind regards and good luck
    Albert M. Svoboda
    Senior Consultant
    IS Management & Organization



MTC-00026650

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the settlement. It seems fair and continued 
litigation seems foolish.



MTC-00026651

From: Shawn Wing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. I think it is 
contrary to capitalism and is bad for the industry.
    Shawn Wing



MTC-00026652

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My view of a computer operating system is that of an automobile; 
How the car works--engine, brakes, etc., is up to the 
manufacturer. But the accelerator is always

[[Page 27851]]

expected to be operated by the right foot and found to the right of 
the brake pedal. In other words, the consumer is not obliged to hire 
a chauffeur provided by the manufacturer who knows where all the 
operating lever are secretly located.
    J. David Riley
    
    Ph: 941-747-8125 Bradenton FL 34212-2783



MTC-00026653

From: Russ Tuck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I remember happily paying Netscape a $30-40/year 
subscription fee for the use of their latest 
``Communicator'' software. Netscape made several regular 
releases of their software each year, with major new features and 
improvements in each one. Then Microsoft decided to ``cut off 
their air supply'' by developing (at great expense) and giving 
away similar ``knock-off'' software.
    Netscape was eventually forced to give their end-user software 
away, and as a result could no longer afford to invest in improving 
and extending it. Releases became infrequent, and significant new 
features quite rare. Once Netscape quit innovating in this area, 
Microsoft mostly quit, too. So several years later, I still prefer 
Netscape's software. I use it throughout each day for email and web 
browsing. But I miss the innovative new features and improved 
reliability Netscape would have added in the intervening years if 
they had been able to continue selling their software.
    I used Netscape Calendar to keep track of my schedule and 
meetings. But now I'm forced to use Outlook for my calendar, because 
Netscape didn't have the resources to continue supporting and 
enhancing their calendar program. So I have to manually manage the 
sharing of my email between Netscape and Outlook (because the 
Outlook calendar requires Outlook email).
    I had hoped that Netscape's Composer for editing HTML would 
become my regular text editor. By storing files in HTML, they would 
have been exchangable with people using all different kinds of 
software. But development stalled, and Composer never became the 
alternative to MS Word (and its proprietary file format) that I'd 
hoped for. Microsoft's illegal behavior has cost me 100s of hours 
(worth many $1000s) in lost productivity by depriving me of 
continued software improvements from Netscape.
    Russ Tuck, Ph.D.
    1136 S. Blaney Ave., San Jose, CA 95129
    [email protected]
    Systems Architect
    Pluris, Inc.
    10455 Bandley Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014



MTC-00026654

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    Mike Rodgers
    P.O. Box 924532
    Houston, TX 77292-4532



MTC-00026655

From: Dan Burgin
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 7:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While no lover of Microsoft and their tactics--I feel that 
any marketshare gained by competitive browsers causes more harm to 
companies than most people realize. Being an entrepreneur of a 
venture-backed startup--I, like most of my colleagues, work 
hard to develop business plans that won't be too attractive for 
Microsoft to emulate and then destroy any competitors in the space 
by giving the technology away for free. While this sometimes make 
finding good Internet technology businesses more difficult--it 
is capitalism at it's best.
    However, many people fail to recognize the incredible waste in 
development dollars spent by companies who develop Internet products 
with the browser as the primary client-side interface. I don't 
really care who wins the browser war, just as long as their is a 
default standard--right now that standard exists because of the 
dominance of Internet Explorer. Companies like Microsoft (and AOL/
Netscape included) will never be required to build browsers that 
adhere to standards...quite the contrary, they ignore the standard 
as a way to compete. This means that if there is no clear winner in 
the browser war, there are now competing standards with signficant 
marketshare. This means that products built to work on both the 
browsers, as they now must, are required to a) either spend vast 
amounts of capital developing work-arounds for the competing 
standards, or b) lower the bar with the functionality of their 
solutions to meet the lowest common denominator of what works in 
both browsers. Each vendor who gains market share increases this 
complexity exponentially.
    While I was just fine developing for Netscape when it was the 
dominant browser, I was actually happy when Microsoft came along 
with a browser that, because it was bundled into the OS, was easier 
for people to adopt. This gave it massive marketshare (well over 80% 
today). With minimal effort we now support all versions of Internet 
Explorer and only the most popular versions of Netscape and achieve 
96% market coverage. Just to make matters worse, the open source 
efforts at Netscape mean that the 6.0 version of the browser works 
completely different from it's predecessors and the vicious support 
cycle continues. Most people couldn't care less which browser they 
use, but to small companies trying to build the next generation of 
browser-based applications--life is hell when more than one 
browser has significant marketshare. Browsers are simple interface 
devices that should be bundled, should be free, and should either 
follow the standard, or set it.
    I am asking you to please consider trying to support a position 
that does not make market conditions worse, dramatically worse, for 
small technology business--and to let Netscape die the death it 
deserves--and that the market has dictated.
    Dan Burgin, CTO
    Finali Corporation
    Westminster, CO



MTC-00026656

From: Barry's--Shurhold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.
    Barry Berhoff
    Palm City, FL



MTC-00026657

From: Don
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:34am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen,
    I believe that the settlement agreed to by the DOJ and 9 states 
was a fair and equitable solution. Microsoft was a strong competitor 
in a new rapidly growing industry in which no one new for sure what 
form the internet would take, and all were looking for an advantage 
in developing the system which would be chosen as the standard for 
the industry. Microsoft developed the best system and made it 
available at low prices. This in turn has led to making the internet 
affordable to almost anyone. Systems much simpler sold for thousands 
of dollars just a few years ago. Microsoft surely hasn't hurt the 
consumer, as he is getting more bang for his buck than ever before.
    I think AOL and some of the so called class actions appear to be 
more aimed at getting a piece of the pie, or more harrassment than 
any thing else. I think it is time to settle this as the other 9 
states accepted, and let Microsoft get back to business. We, the 
consumers have certainly benefited greatly from their innovation and 
expertise.
    Thank you,
    Donald L. Bintliff
    Pea Ridge, AR



MTC-00026658

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:33am
Subject: ``My fellings and concerns. ``
    I have read and have been following reports of the Microsoft 
case in news papers and am concerned that this is turning into a 
witch hunt agains't Microsoft, the settlement was by far more than 
fair, this looks like to me to be another ATT case which broke up

[[Page 27852]]

a great company and no one was the better for it. Mircrosoft has 
done a great deal of good and I believe that this suit should end 
for the good of the whole country, I could go on but I believe you 
now know my feelings and concerns. thank you for allowing me to 
share thoses concerns.
    Donald E. Matson, Erie,Pa.



MTC-00026659

From: Gordon W grigor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If you please, Sirs and Madams,
    The arrogance displayed by Microsoft in its responses to the DoJ 
REQUIRE a serious punitive reaction. A serious breaking down of its 
software divisions, contempt citings for management and financial 
penalties are the only suitable responses.
    yours
    Gordon Grigor



MTC-00026661

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice;
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft (MS) is much too weak to 
be an effective punishment. I believe this company thinks it can get 
away with just about anything if it uses words to disguise its true 
intentions. They are guilty of misleading
    In specific, the Educational aspect of the settlement, which 
would allow MS to give away products and to ``sign up'' 
people to use their products for bargain basement prices, is 
appalling. MS believes they're being fair and generous with their 
offer, but if they really want to make amends, I second Apple CEO 
Steve Jobs'' idea that MS give only cash for the face value of 
the settlement rather than product that is actually worth much less.
    If you look at the true cost to MS, the real cost of the 
products they want to give away will not even come close to the 
retail value. This seems like a typical MS strategy of subterfuge. 
The equipment, software and support proposed by MS to be given to 
schools and the alleged price of such a giveaway is not in any way 
causing MS to ``pay''. Rather, it's a recruitment move by 
MS and it will hurt competitors. This would only encourage their 
monopolistic behavior to continue in the future. What a bargain for 
MS. No wonder they are excited about their idea!. Please don't let 
MS get off scott-free with some gentle hand-slapping. They have very 
deep pockets. Their actions deserve serious consequences. Why would 
you go lenient on them yet go full tilt on smaller fish? It'd be a 
slap in the face of all that the United States of America stands for 
in terms of justice.
    You've got MS where you want them, and you can do the general 
public a huge favor, help to foster fair business practices in the 
future, and serve justice by punishing these people where it hurts 
the most; in their wallet and in their reputation. Make them pay 
royally and do not allow them to create another monopoly in 
education with their phony giveaway idea.
    Thanks.
    Mark Winter



MTC-00026662

From: John Stevenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I thought that Microsoft had been found in court to have engaged 
in anti competitive practices. These practices damaged some smaller 
companies and left them weaker and/or unable to compete except in 
niche markets. I see NO signs in this proposed judgement that any 
attempt is being made to manufacture large strong competitors in a 
manner that would balance the playing field.
    Where is justice in this?
    Companies ``killed off'' or seriously damaged by 
Microsoft's illegal actions have--what redress?
    Even for the future what serious levelling of the playing field 
has been done? I support the suggestion that Microsoft be forced to 
give cash rather than Microsoft's own products (advertising/training 
of the next generation of potential purchasers into the Microsoft 
world) to the disadvantaged schools. Even better might be to force 
them to make at least part ( say--third cash/third competing/
third their own--all by retail price) of the 
``donation'' in open source competing products so that the 
new generation of schoolchildren are exposed to more than Microsoft 
based computing systems. How big will the total real value of the 
``donation'' have to be to really punish them--the 
figures I have seen do not look like a punishment--just a slap 
on the wrist for this giant predatory monopoly who used illegal 
methods to advance their position. I suggest that since Microsoft 
have used their illegally obtained virtual monopoly on software to 
take control world-wide--the schools ``donation 
fine'' (as modified above) should be applicable world-wide and 
should be massively increased.
    The USofA so often sets itself up as the maintainer of Justice 
and Righteousness for the world--the setter of the 
standards--let us see it publicly discipline ``one of its 
own'' which has been found guilty of illegal practices that 
have damaged many people and companies world-wide.
    Yours
    John Stevenson



MTC-00026663

From: Shirley A Hackenberger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:59am
Subject: Others are Jealous
    It's time to end this costly battle over Microsoft, others are 
just jealous. No sense in dragging out this battle, please put a end 
to this now.
    Shirley Hackenberger



MTC-00026664

From: Jo Gimse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:11am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement.''
    PLEASE END THIS FIGHT AND MAKE A SETTLEMENT SO WE SENIORS CAN 
GET ON WITH LEARNING THIS COMPUTER AND ENJOY IT. WE ARE SO VERY 
SORRY SOME RICH WANT TO GET RICHER BUT YOUR COMPANY HAS
    SHOWN TO US THAT YOU CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE, BY GIVING OF YOUR 
SELF AND YOUR PRODUCTS TO THE SCHOOLS, WHICH THEY NEED AND REALLY 
APPRECIATE.
    WE SEE NO WRONG IN ANY ONE GETTING AHEAD BY THEIR BRAINS AND WE 
SAY, HIP HIP HURRAH FOR YOU.
    WE HOPE THEY GET OFF YOUR BACK SOON, AND LET THE WORLD GET ON 
WITH THEIR LIFE WITH YOUR MICROSOFT. IF THE COMPETITORS WANT TO GET 
BETTER LET THEM BUT DO THEY HAVE TO DOWN GRADE YOU TO DO IT, NO NO 
NO !! GOOD LUCK AND WE PRAY YOU GET THIS OUT OF THE WAY SO YOU CAN 
GET ON WITH ALL THE WONDERFUL THINGS YOUR COMPANY DOES, AND DOES SO 
WELL.
    SINCERELY,
    JO & JAMES GIMSE
    4829 SOUTH 7TH STREET
    TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98405-1206



MTC-00026665

From: Susan M Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: No Good!
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    I agree with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on 
the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html). I believe that 
thecourt should reject the proposed USDOJ vs Microsoft final 
judgment and instead adopt the remedies in the proposed final 
judgment of the nine states as the final judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Susan M Hansen
    100 Rosewood Rd.
    Rocky Pt., NY 11778



MTC-00026666

From: Patricia Riendeau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1670 SE Chello Lane
Port Saint Lucie, FL 34983
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Our country is based on our desire to succeed. We cherish the 
ideals that have made this a great nation. Why punishment when 
success is ``too'' great? Finally, after three long years, 
this whole matter seems on the verge of being over and done with. 
Microsoft was wrongfully prosecuted for being a monopoly and it is 
high time that this whole matter is resolved so that they can get 
back to business as usual.
    They have such a desire to see this case over and done with that 
they have made extreme concessions that would normally never be 
expected of any other business. No other company would be expected 
to give over its trade secrets so that its competitors could get a 
leg up. But that is precisely what Microsoft is called upon to do 
and expected

[[Page 27853]]

not to retaliate when their products are squeezed out of the market.
    I hope that such extreme measures will satisfy everyone, but I'm 
sure that there are some people who won't give up until they get a 
personal check from Microsoft. I hope that these people see just how 
much that this lawsuit is hurting the average American who depends 
on Microsoft products.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Riendeau



MTC-00026667

From: Art Sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a corporate developer and what I see in the settlement does 
not addrress the major problem I have .
    Microsoft with every release appears to exclude more and more 
software competitors. They are doing this by making middle ware none 
functional or none addressable.
    I suggest the actions outlined below be address.
    Thank you for your conmsideration
    Art Sullivan
    3 Haymount Terrace
    Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510
    Action
    Establishment of a Windows API Standards Expert Group To clearly 
and unambiguously establish what is required, technically and 
legally, for an Intel-compatible operating system to install and run 
Windows applications properly, the Court shall take the following 
actions with the goal of creating and maintaining an Essential 
Windows APIs Standard Definition and corresponding Essential Windows 
APIs Standard Compliance Test Suite:
    1. Within 60 days of entry of this Final Judgment, the parties 
shall create and recommend to the Court for its appointment a six 
person Windows API Standards Expert Group (''WASEG'') to 
manage the creation, publication, and maintenance of an Essential 
Windows APIs Standard Definition, and to guide it through the 
process of being adopted by a standards body such as ECMA or the 
IEEE.
    2. Three of the WASEG members shall be experts in software 
design and programming, and three of the WASEG members shall be 
experts in intellectual property law. No WASEG 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 WASEG member shall have entered into any non- disclosure 
agreement that is still in force with Microsoft or any competitor to 
Microsoft, nor shall she or he enter into such an agreement during 
her or his term on the WASEG. Without limitation to the foregoing, 
no WASEG member 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 WASEG.
    3. Within seven days of entry of this Final Judgment, the 
Plaintiffs as a group shall select two software experts and two 
intellectual property law experts to be members of the WASEG, and 
Microsoft shall select one software expert and one intellectual 
property law expert to be members of the WASEG; the Plaintiffs shall 
then apply to the Court for appointment of the persons selected by 
the Plaintiffs and Microsoft pursuant to this section.
    4. Each WASEG member shall serve for an initial term of 30 
months. At the end of a WASEG member's initial 30-month term, the 
party that originally selected him or her may, in its sole 
discretion, either request re-appointment by the Court to a second 
30-month term or replace the WASEG member in the same manner as 
provided for above.
    5. If the United States or a majority of the Plaintiffs 
determine that a member of the WASEG has failed to act diligently 
and consistently with the purposes of this Final Judgment, or if a 
member of the WASEG resigns, or for any other reason ceases to serve 
in his or her capacity as a member of the WASEG, the person or 
persons that originally selected the WASEG member shall select a 
replacement member in the same manner as provided for above.
    6. Promptly after appointment of the WASEG by the Court, the 
united states shall enter into a Windows API Expert Group services 
agreement (''WASEG Services Agreement'') with each WASEG 
member that grants the rights, powers and authorities necessary to 
permit the WASEG to perform its duties under this Final Judgment. 
Microsoft shall indemnify each WASEG 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 WASEG's duties, 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 WASEG 
member. The WASEG Services Agreements shall include the following:
    1. The WASEG members shall serve, without bond or other 
security, at the cost and expense of Microsoft on such terms and 
conditions as the Plaintiffs approve, including the payment of 
reasonable fees and expenses.
    2. The WASEG Services Agreement shall provide that each member 
of the WASEG shall comply with the limitations provided for in 
section IV.E.2. above.
    7. Microsoft shall provide the WASEG with funds needed to 
procure office space, telephone, other office support facilities, 
consultants, or contractors required by the WASEG.
    8. The WASEG shall not have direct access to any part of 
Microsoft's computer software source code that is not normally 
available to all ISV's. The WASEG shall not enter into any non-
disclosure agreements with Microsoft or third parties. No 
implementations of any Windows APIs shall be written or published by 
the WASEG.
    9. The WASEG shall have the following powers and duties:
    1. The WASEG may require Microsoft to provide comprehensive 
answers to questions about Microsoft intellectual property claims.
    2. The WASEG may require Microsoft to provide comprehensive 
answers to questions about the inputs, outputs, and functionality of 
any Windows API; in particular, the WASEG may compel Microsoft to 
provide complete documentation for hitherto undocumented or poorly-
documented Windows APIs.
    3. The WASEG may engage, at the cost and expense of Microsoft, 
the services of outside consultants and contractors as required to 
fulfill the duties of the WASEG.
    4. The WASEG shall establish a publicly available web site not 
owned or otherwise controlled by Microsoft, and will publish status 
reports and other information there at least as often as once per 
month. Documentation on the web site shall be made available subject 
to the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; test suite 
source code made available on the web site shall be made available 
subject to the terms of the GNU General Public License.
    5. The WASEG shall compile a complete list of Windows APIs, 
including for each API the DLL name, entry point name, entry point 
ordinal number, return value type, and parameter types. Within 90 
days after the WASEG is convened, and on the 1st of each month 
thereafter until complete, the WASEG shall make the currently 
completed portion of this list available via its web site. The WASEG 
shall use tools such as Apius from Sarion Systems Research to verify 
that the list of Windows APIs is indeed complete, and that 
installing or running any Popular Windows Application does not cause 
any unlisted Windows API to be invoked.
    6. The WASEG shall compile a complete list of Essential Windows 
API patents and patents pending, and which Windows APIs each patent 
covers. The WASEG shall compile this list by asking Microsoft for a 
complete list of Essential Windows API patents and patents pending, 
and then determining which Windows APIs are likely to be covered by 
each patent or patent pending; the WASEG shall use the World Wide 
Web Consortium's document www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-patent-practice- 
20020124 as guidance. Within 180 days after the WASEG is convened, 
and on the 1st of every month thereafter until complete, the WASEG 
shall make the completed portion of this list available via its web 
site.
    7. The WASEG shall compile documentation for the above list of 
Windows APIs, including a complete description of the meanings of 
the return values and parameters, and the effects of the API. The 
documentation should be composed in a style similar to that used for 
the Single Unix Specification documentation ( http://www.UNIX-
systems.org/go/unix). Within 180 days after the WASEG is convened, 
and on the 1st of every month thereafter until complete, the WASEG 
will make available the currently completed portion of this 
documentation via its web site.
    8. When the three documents described above--the list of 
Windows APIs, the list of Essential Windows Patents, and the 
documentation for the listed Windows APIs--is complete, the 
WASEG shall undertake to submit them to a standards body such as 
ECMA or the IEEE as a Public Windows APIs Standard Document, and to 
make such enhancements and revisions as needed to gain the 
acceptance of that document as a standard.

[[Page 27854]]

    9. The WASEG shall create an Essential Windows APIs Standard 
Compliance Test Suite, and publish it on the WASEG web site subject 
to the GNU General Public License, according to the following 
schedule: Within 180 days after the WASEG is convened, the WASEG 
shall publish test cases for at least fifty Windows APIs. On the 1st 
of each month thereafter, the WASEG shall publish test cases for at 
least another fifty Windows APIs; this shall continue until a 
complete Essential Windows APIs Standard Compliance Test Suite is 
available on the web site.
    10. In the event that a planned update to Windows or any other 
Microsoft product is expected to result in the creation of new 
Windows APIs, the WASEG shall create addenda to the above documents 
and test suite covering the new APIs, make them available via its 
web site, and undertake to submit them to the same standards body as 
above as an addendum to the standard.



MTC-00026668

From: John Bork
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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 resident of the State of Ohio and a professional computer 
programmer who works in both Microsoft and non-Microsoft 
environments. I have been using microcomputers for over 20 years, 
and have witnessed Microsoft monopolize the PC world. Lately, 
however, there seems to be a glimmer of hope in the proliferation of 
the Linux operating system, which indeed Microsoft has recognized as 
its greatest potential threat.
    Specific Failing in the Proposed Settlement:
    The Proposed Settlement does not recognize the unique 
contribution of the Linux operating system and the so-called 
``open source movement'' to regenerating a competitive 
market in the PC software business. I executed a search on the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment and found no mention of Linux. As 
for details, I defer to more competent analysts such as Jeremy P. 
White, CEO of Codeweavers, Inc., and Dan Kegel, who have already 
submitted comments.
    Closing Comments
    It is obvious that in the years that this case has progressed, 
Microsoft has taken steps to further integrate the functionality of 
its Internet browser into the underlying operating system. The 
``.NET Framework'' Microsoft is now promoting will further 
extend the reach of their monopoly. Without an immanent settlement 
or other legal relief, the advance of Microsoft as the default 
software provider in the PC world only grows stronger. Eventually, 
there will be no relief possible. As an American and a professional 
computer programmer, I fear the loss of this freedom.
    Sincerely,
    John Robert Bork
    Findlay, Ohio



MTC-00026669

From: Steve Weller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't like the settlement terms because it will make it 
difficult for companies like CodeWeavers to put such fine products 
as Wine. 
    Steve Weller
    Steve Weller
    P.O. Box 3528
    Newport Beach, Ca 92659



MTC-00026670

From: Mac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a professional marketing and advertising person using an 
Apple platform computer.
    I hope the the DOJ breaks up Microsoft into smaller companies 
that allow more competition in software and hardware development. 
The Windows OS should be a separate and non-linked program. Having 
Internet Explorer as a web browser on an Apple OS computer is a real 
problem. When installed, it will set itself as the default web 
browser, even though it is installed NOT AS A DEFAULT in it's own 
set up process.
    It sets too many default preferences for Microsoft products. If 
Internet Explorer is installed, it will set Outlook Express as a 
default email program, even when it is not installed on the 
computer. It also installs preferences for components in the Office 
suite ( iE: Excel, PowerPoint, Word,etc) even though these ARE NOT 
INSTALLED on the computer. This forces me to have to go through 
several ``preferences'' control panels to reset the email 
program back to either Eudora or Netscape as the default email 
program. When installing Internet Explorer, there are NO OPTIONS to 
prevent this. One must install the entire program with other 
computer preferences being changed without my approval.
    There is also, no provision in Internet Explorer to UNINSTALL it 
from any computer. One must search the hard drives for any and all 
components that are part of the program. If these are not removed, 
the computer will crash and other browsers, like Netscape cannot run 
until they are gone.
    Microsoft does make some good products, but when their products 
reset my preferences, without my approval, this shows how 
inconsiderate they are of other platforms and software 
manufacturers. Please break up the company into two.
    (1) One for the operating system and one for the other 
softwares.
    (2) Require all Microsoft installers to have specific and 
individual options for what is or IS NOT installed on any computer. 
Microsoft has no right to decide what softwares I want or need and 
should not be allowed to atuomatically install prefences, programs, 
links or any other component that is not vital to the web browsers 
operation. I should be able to choose what is installed.
    Joe Maltby
    [email protected]



MTC-00026671

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end this litigation NOW!!!



MTC-00026672

From: Jeff Bonar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the 
proposed Department of Justice (DOJ) settlement of the United States 
vs. Microsoft antitrust case.
    Background:
    I am the founder and CEO of JumpStart Wireless Corporation. We 
develop wireless software applications available for 1/10th the cost 
of wireless software using convention techniques. As the leader of a 
small software company, I read the proposed Microsoft settlement 
with dismay. Microsoft has used it's monopoly position in desktop 
operating systems (OS) to effectively kill off all competition in 
the desktop software and small network space. Their business actions 
over recent months, with the release of the Windows XP operating 
system, indicate that they have their eyes in similarly killing off 
competition for multimedia applications and network 
services--their ``.Net'' initiatives.
    Similar business behavior for Wireless software is only a matter 
of time. Already Windows CE, Pocket PC, and the code-named 
``Stinger'' phones are marketed using techniques that 
leverage Microsoft's desktop monopoly.
    Software and information technology is a critical part of the 
evolving ``Information Age''. To allow one company to 
dominate leverage their monopoly to dominate major segments of 
information technology costs all of us--the market cannot 
function to produce innovation.
    I feel strongly that the settlement of Microsoft's monopoly case 
should provide real, strong, and effective remedies that force 
Microsoft to compete on a level playing field.
    Specific Failing in the Proposed Settlement: 1. The DOJ 
settlement should restrict the core way in which Microsoft 
unlawfully maintains its Windows operating system (OS) monopoly, 
namely bundling and tying competing platform software (known as 
?middleware?) like Web browsers and Java, to the OS. While 
technically obscure, these components are the engine of innovation 
in the emerging world of networked and wireless applications. 
Particularly offensive, for example, is the Windows XP decision to 
treat all Java applications as security threats.The Court of Appeals 
specifically rejected Microsoft's petition for rehearing on the 
bundling issue, yet the proposed settlement does nothing about it
    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

[[Page 27855]]

the DOJ deal does nothing to restore competition with Windows. Most 
critical, the new settlement should put complete documentation of 
the detailed Windows information (known as ?APIs?) in the public 
domain. Because this is technically quite difficult without the 
release of information that Microsoft withholds from most 
developers, Microsoft must be compelled for fully cooperate in this 
activity. As currently formulated, the DOJ settlement 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. Microsoft continues to 
demolish potential competition in 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 deal does not even try to 
restrict ways in which Microsoft could (and already has) leverage 
its Windows monopoly in the future.
    Closing Comments:
    I have focused my comments here on how the proposed settlement 
would affect JumpStart Wireless Corporation. I have been 
particularly helped by the analysis published by the Computer and 
Communication Industry Association at http://www.ccianet.org/papers/
ms/sellout.php3.
    I feel that the proposed settlement has other serious flaws. 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,
    Jeff Bonar
    CEO JumpStart Wireless Corporation
    Jeffrey Bonar, Ph.D
    JumpStart Wireless Corporation
    398 West Camino Gardens Blvd #204
    Boca Raton, FL 33432
    561-347-6710
    [email protected]



MTC-00026673

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:04am
Subject: As a 20 year computer user, I want to voice my disapproval
    As a 20 year computer user, I want to voice my disapproval of 
all the attacks on Microsoft. The state of our economy is in part do 
the the JHAD the Justice Department has made on Microsoft. Consider, 
if not for Mircosoft you would not likly be able to run your 
computer. If you think not just try using DOS, or UNIX or the 20 
other operating sustem's on the market. Windows made it so any idiot 
can run a computer which caused millions of people to buy a 
computer. A few jealous competitors and sympathetic government 
bureaucrats is not a good reason to wrack havoc on a America dream 
company.
    Gilbert J Smith



MTC-00026675

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:17am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I support settlement of microsoft issue as best for the citizens 
of this country.
    Lois M Carter



MTC-00026676

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel very strongly that the Justice Department should accept 
the Microsoft settlement and do NO further litigation on this 
matter. I believe accepting the settlement will be good for the 
economy and all parties concerned.
    Orbin M. Sexson
    105 Patterson Dr.
    Au8burndale, FL 33823-2323



MTC-00026677

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear DOJ,
    As an avid computer user, I have been following the Microsoft 
Antitrust case with interest for several years now. In light of the 
recently proposed settlement, I am very disappointed in the proposed 
remedies and I would like to focus on two points:
    1. The remedies do nothing to protect the interests of open-
source software, such as the Linux operating system and Apache 
server software. These open-source projects represent some of the 
few remaining alternative to Microsoft products and must be 
protected.
    2. The proposal does nothing to address the Microsoft .NET 
project, which is aimed to replace the wonderfully platform-
independent Java programming language with yet another Microsoft 
product. This will allow Microsoft to even further leverage their 
stranglehold on the Windows operating system by eventually dropping 
support for Java.
    I know that a great many individuals have expressed their own 
disappointments with the Microsoft Settlement--thank you for 
taking the time to read mine.
    Sincerely,
    Christpher Holley
Durham, NC
Medical Student
Duke University
Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology
phone: 919-613-8625
fax: 919-681-1005



MTC-00026678

From: Ron E Tecklenburg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir
    I am a senior citizen and would like you to know that if it 
wasn't for Microsoft Windows I would not even be using a 
computer.Thanks to Microsoft me and thousands like me are doing very 
well with computers. I hope you will drop the charges against 
Microsoft Corp.
    Thank You
    Ronald E. Tecklenburg
    2839 Elk Peak Ct.
    St. Louis MO. 63129-5706



MTC-00026679

From: Otto C Grummt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am just an ordinary citizen who has been following the actions 
against Microsoft. As such, I have been concerned about the apparent 
government actions as a plan to ``get Microsoft''. The 
actions of Judge Penfield Jackson were particularly inappropriate, 
in my opinion.
    I want to be counted among those who oppose further action 
against Microsoft. I strongly believe that the proposed settlement 
offers a reasonable compromise that will enhance the ability of 
seniors and all Americans to access the Internet and use innovative 
software products to make their computer experience easier and more 
enjoyable.
    Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion.
    Otto Grummt
    11104 Flora Lee Dr.
    Fairfax Station, VA 22039



MTC-00026680

From: Andy Pasulka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe that Microsoft's proposal for a settlement to 
their antitrust suit is satisfactory in the least. They have 
proposed their settlement
    1. to effectively take squatter's rights on a slice of the 
educational market they can't win by ordinary measures and
    2. to put those users and organizations on the Microsoft upgrade 
treadmill.
    Their proposal does nothing to address the original DOJ 
complaints, and in fact, reasserts their predatory nature on the 
marketplace. Please do not accept their proposal.
    ANP



MTC-00026681

From: Brian Gockley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:32am
Subject: Microsoft and Monopolys
    Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Thank you 
also for you persistent efforts to review this large and important 
case. I have very little to say that has not already been said, but 
would like to take this opportunity for public input to do so. I 
have small business experience with several Operating Systems 
including Windows, Macintosh, Atari and Amiga. I was a

[[Page 27856]]

computer store manager that sold these products, a trade publication 
journalist and a trade show promoter who ran computer shows in CT.
    In all of these positions, we were always pushed as much by 
individual buyers as by Microsoft into selling Windows. Even though 
most people recognized it as an inferior product, the fact that they 
used it at work was the determining factor in what they purchased 
for home use. In theory, this is how the free market is supposed to 
work: unfettered competition bringing out the best product as the 
market winner, with a great deal of innovation.
    It is hard to argue that there has not been innovation in the 
computer industry, however, the question is whether it was 
encouraged or restricted by Microsoft's Windows OS. I think the 
challenge for the judge is discerning how the mechanics of the 
industry mean that the OS that sits on top of the hardware 
controlled instead of opened the market. Because the OS and the 
hardware have been linked, software developers and programmers have 
had to write separate versions of all their program. If any one of 
the companies could have written software that ran on anyone's 
hardware, then we would have had a very different market, Instead, 
great innovations like the Atari OS, the Amiga OS, the NeXT OS, GeOS 
and others would still be around. Other innovations like the Unix/
Linux development would not have had to duplicate simple programs 
like word processors, etc. to run on their own OS. The loss of the 
code and development time that these innovators wasted is directly 
because of the unbreakable link between the Intel hardware and the 
Microsoft software.
    The field is far from level, thank you for addressing the manner 
in which this situation has developed. I hope that your solution 
encourages innovation and open standards.
    Thank You,
    Brian Gockley



MTC-00026682

From: Harold L. Burnsed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it would be in the best interet of all concerned to 
accept this settlement and put it to bed. The cost is getting out of 
control and no reasonable excuse for it. Let's get on with economy 
and other issues that face this nation.
    Thanks for your consideration to accept the settlement and move 
forward
    Harold L. Burnsed
    8612 Rancho Drive
    Ooltewah, TN 37363
    [email protected]



MTC-00026683

From: GERHARD (038) ERIKA DIESENER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:42am
Subject: Letter to the GENERAL ATTORNEY MR. ASHCROFT.
    Dear Microsoft.
    My letter was send a couple of days ago to the attorney general 
Ashcroft. I was very pleased with your draft it realy expressed my 
thought.
    Gerhard Diesener
    E-mail. gerderika@ isni.net



MTC-00026684

From: jackchro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:43am
Subject: free to innovate
    Microsoft has inhibited the growth of a very wide range of 
companies for many years. ONLY the government has the power to 
protect all of our other software and hardware providers. Clear and 
accurate evidence was presented, and Microsoft was found guilty. 
Since when and where do those found guilty get to decide their own 
punishment? The states that have held out from the settlement are 
acting on behalf of the citizen and consumer. They need to be 
respected and heeded. Break the monopoly and let those who truly 
innovate be free from unfair business practices.



MTC-00026685

From: Dorothy G Munoz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    In the best interest of the public in general, especially Senior 
Citizens, please complete the compromise settlement with Microsoft 
now.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Dorothy G. Munoz
    [email protected]
    190 SW 3 St.
    Dania Beach, FL 33004-3927



MTC-00026686

From: John Steiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    We are in complete agreement with the following from Computers 
for Computing Choice regarding the Microsoft case:
    Sincerely,
    John Steiner and Margo King
    Boulder, Colorado
    Microsoft has twice been found guilty of serious violations of 
the
    Sherman Antitrust Act, by a federal District Court and by the 
United States Court of Appeals. While the Court of Appeals reversed 
the breakup order issued by the District Court, it upheld the trial 
court's Findings of Fact and affirmed that Microsoft is guilty of 
unlawfully maintaining its monopoly.
    The Court of Appeals ordered the District Court to hold 
proceedings to fashion remedies that restore competition and deprive 
Microsoft of the fruits of its illegal conduct.
    The Department of Justice is attempting to prevent these 
proceeding by entering into a settlement with Microsoft that 
preserves its monopoly power, does virtually nothing to restore 
competition, and leaves Microsoft with all of the ill-gotten gains 
from illegally maintaining its monopoly.
    The settlement will still allow Microsoft to extend its triple 
monopoly in operating systems, office applications, and Internet 
applications. This triple monopoly leaves Microsoft in a position to 
capture control of the Internet in the same way it gained control of 
the desktop.
    Microsoft is already planning a future in which you will rent 
its software as a set of services over the Internet. Microsoft will 
then monitor your computing activities and charge you for them. 
Essential services will be dependent on databases that store much of 
your private information at Microsoft data centers and run your 
transactions through them. The only way to stop this is to restore 
competition in operating systems, office applications, and Internet 
applications now.
    Consumers for Computing Choice believes that any settlement or 
Final Judgment must include remedies that provide:
    (1) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run the 70,000 
existing Windows applications without modification on all other 
operating systems.
    (2) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native 
versions of Microsoft Office applications on all other operating 
systems.
    (3) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or 
more of the four Office applications with competing applications, 
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services 
with any Microsoft application.
    (4) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native 
versions of Explorer, Media Player and other Microsoft Internet 
applications on all other operating systems.
    (5) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or 
more Microsoft Internet applications with competing applications, 
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services 
with any Microsoft application.
    (6) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace any 
component or feature in any Microsoft software product with superior 
or special purpose components or features.
    (7) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run any Microsoft 
software on computers that do not have Intel-compatible 
microprocessors.
    (8) A simple, affordable, and reliable way for software 
developers to access all the information they need to create 
products that offer consumers these choices.
    (9) A way to ensure that original equipment manufacturers 
provide consumers with equal access to computers with alternative 
operating systems, productivity applications, and Internet 
applications.
    (10) A ``crown jewel'' provision establishing such 
serious consequences for non-compliance that Microsoft will not 
attempt to evade the necessary disclosure requirements and other 
mandates.



MTC-00026687

From: Marvin E Petersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:54am
Subject: settleing of Microsoft suit.
    I feel that the settlement offered is in the public interest and 
I want you to settle with M. S. now . they are helpful and not a 
threat to the selfish competetors. Do it Now.

[[Page 27857]]

    Marvin Petersen.



MTC-00026689

From: Shawn Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata B. Hesse:
    I am very disappointed in the way the Department of Justice 
settled the Microsoft anti-trust case. What disappointed me most 
about the settling of this case was the the Department of Justice 
(DOJ) did not work to seek a remedy that all the suing States 
accepted. It's my opinion that since the DOJ partnered with the 
State's to sue Microsoft for anti-competitive practices, then the 
DOJ should have followed though by creating a settlement that all 
participants could back.
    Sincerely,
    Shawn Cooper
    4509 Broadway #305
    Kansas City, MO 64111



MTC-00026690

From: Timothy Huenke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:01am
Subject: Please don't settle this!!
    Bill Gates and his croneys are criminals. Period. He and his 
crew have done nothing more than lie, cheat and steal their way to 
the top. If you don't believe me research the history of the 
company. So many technological advances have fallen into obscurity 
because of their business practices it's not even funny. Have you 
ever seen the BE Operating System? What happened to Word Perfect? 
Why won't some official admit publicly that Microsoft's entire 
operating system is nothing more than a cheapened knock-off of the 
Macintosh Operating System. Letting MS ``get away with 
it'' one more time just proves that money will get you 
anything.This does nothing more than make honest citizens and 
business both equally jaded and despondent.
    Here's an idea for a settlement: Tell Microsoft to put it's 
money where it's mouth is, and let's see how 
``innovative'' Billy and his team really are. Sequester 
off the entire design staff of Microsoft for six months letting them 
have no contact with the outside world. During that time order them 
to come up with something entirely new and ``innovative'' 
for the computer industry. What do you think they would come up with 
without having other companies ideas to steal? I'll tell you what, 
you'd get zip out of them. That's because the heads of Microsoft are 
not creative, innovative folks.
    I wouldn't even take into consideration the economic effects of 
any punitive damages on MS. Even if the company was utterly 
destroyed, (which in my opinion is the best answer) the technology 
sector would still thrive. It would simply clear the way for a more 
competitive tech sector that would rise to new heights unimagined by 
stock analysts today. I'm sure that there are companies afraid to 
produce software innovations today because of the fear and loathing 
imposed by the ``Bullies of Redmond''.
    Do the public a favor for once and properly punish these 
criminals and treat them for what they are: Technological Cosa 
Nostra.
    Tim Huenke



MTC-00026691

From: Kevin O'Neill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I say don't let up on them. A large past of their success is 
based on unfair practices. As a consultant, they have made my like 
difficult over the years by making it harder or even impossible to 
install competitor's software.
    They have been devious at the cost to the user. Favoritism is 
unfair to the little guy.
    Regards,
    Kevin O'Neill
    Paso Robles, CA



MTC-00026693

From: Holly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a private citizen writing to register my complaints against 
Microsoft, and my hope that the Department of Justice might actually 
look at the issue of Microsoft's essential monopoloy of the software 
marketplace from the point of view of an ordinary user. MS has 
developed a wide variety of nice software. However, it's also 
infamous for bugs and security risks.
    Why? Because they care only about controlling the market so they 
can make the most money possible. Their goal is not to make a 
reasonable amount of money while serving people well, but to 
maximise their profit while minimising their investment of money and 
time. Quality is always the first sacrificial victim of such a 
mindset. This is the same kind of reasoning that has gotten our 
planet into such trouble, environmentally, socially, 
politically....you name it.
    As long as the primary goal is making money, and that goal is 
not at least marginally balanced by a willingness to look down the 
road at the future, we will have software that crashes computers and 
doesn't deliver what the hype promised. I wonder just how much 
wasted time there is in business alone, brought about by MS's buggy 
programs? How many problems due to viruses, thanks to MS's 
sloppiness about program security? I'm no expert on these subjects. 
But I am a Microsoft program user, because there's NO EFFECTIVE 
competition, due to MS's stridently irresponsible marketing. As a 
user, I have to constantly back up things, I have to be constantly 
wary about viruses, I have to assume that new releases will be less 
stable than old. Surely it's obvious that these mindsets don't 
advance business, or research, or anything other than MS's income?
    I sincerely hope you will look at these issues with the big 
picture in mind. What will tomorrow's computing future look like 
with MS in the driver's seat?
    Thank you,
    Holly Shaltz
    http://www.hjsstudio.com
    http://www.shaltzfarm.com



MTC-00026694

From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
821 Cross Street
Destin, FL 32541
January 26, 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 disgust at the lengthy and costly 
lawsuit brought against Microsoft over the last three years. 
Microsoft has been a pillar of our Technology industry creating 
jobs, generating wealth, and making technological breakthroughs. As 
a proponent of free enterprise, I think the government needs to stop 
sticking their noses into private business matters.
    The terms of the settlement are very harsh and will inhibit 
Microsoft's ability to be competitive especially the stipulation 
forcing then not to enter into third party agreement that obligates 
exclusive distribution of Microsoft products. Also, forcing them to 
disclose interfaces that are internal to Windows operating system 
products seems to be a violation of their intellectual property 
rights.
    Nevertheless, it is in the bets interests of the American public 
for the litigation to end, so I urge your office to implement the 
settlement and suppress the opposition from bringing future 
lawsuits.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Lundstrom
    cc: Representative Jefferson Miller



MTC-00026696

From: DeP's
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place. This new OS will have 
unique & specifics features a part of the classic general 
computer characteristics. but there is no hope of success if the 
following issues aren't addressed :
    *MS Office and Windows are too close to let consumers choose 
between several OSs. Working on medias on BeOS (because of its 
unique features and low cost applications), I has sometimes letters 
to send and because MS Office monopoly, I have no choice than boot 
on Windows and work on MS Word. MS Office needs to be opened, so 
that developers interested in porting it or understanding the 
document formats can do so either in form of a source code licence 
or an allowance to see it, check it and ``clone 
libraries'', so that applications on non- Windows OSs can read 
and write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with Windows 
users.
    *All the OEM Microsoft should be able to propose a ``dual 
boo'' for an alternative operating system if the consumer wants 
it. With dual booting, consumers will be able to compare closely the 
characteristics of teh OS and chose. The pressure of Micorsoft on 
the

[[Page 27858]]

OEM leave the alternative OSs as ``geek toys''. 
``TuneTracker'' application let you build a fully 
automatic radio with half the price comparing to Windows 
applicatiosn.
    *The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented 
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but 
other OS too.
    *The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can 
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions. This should restore 
and improve competitiveness in the computer market and improve 
consumers benefits. This should certainly let me choose between all 
the products available in the market.
    Best Regards
    Damien-Pierre LESOT
    12, Rue Blomet
    75015 PARSI
    FRANCE



MTC-00026697

From: Russ Britton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:07am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    We are in favor of the agreement. It's time for the Justice 
Department to spend more time on going after terrorists and less 
time going after Microsoft on behalf of AOL Time Warner.
    Russ & Donna Britton



MTC-00026698

From: Tim Harper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is bad. Microsoft has made a habit of providing 
badly designed and poorly conceived software while doing everything 
it can to thwart any competition whatsoever. There has never been a 
release of a Microsift product that does not have some major 
functionality flaw or security hole. It is time to take this 
corporation to task and force them to behave responsibily as a 
United States corporation acting in the interest of the US at large.
    Tim Harper



MTC-00026699

From: Stuart Wyatt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir(s),
    Microsoft is getting away scot free. They are a huge monopoly, 
and if they are not stopped now, then I fear that it will be too 
late in the not too distant future.



MTC-00026700

From: Tim Harper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the Microsoft court settlement. I think the 
settlement is not punishing Mcrosoft for their obvious infractions 
and does not have the interest of the United States citizenry at 
heart.



MTC-00026701

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
FYLYPOWYCZ
36 SCOTLAND DRIVE
READING, PA 19606
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my support of the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. I am a huge 
proponent of the capitalist system, and I thoroughly believe 
Microsoft is one of our country's biggest assets, both through job 
creation and through technological advances.
    I have never felt that my rights as a consumer have been 
infringed upon. Nor do I feel that Microsoft represents a monopoly, 
since it consistently delivers quality products at prices that are 
reasonable relative to the market. Nevertheless, the terms of the 
settlement will serve to temper Microsoft heavy-handed marketing 
tactics. Fostering improved relations with software developers and 
computer makers by changing such business practices as licensing and 
marketing will help to reach this objective. Moreover, relations 
will improve if Microsoft eliminates anti-retaliation agreements, 
which it is also pledged to do.
    Although I think the lawsuit was flawed from the start, it is 
now in the public's best interests for this dispute to go away, and 
therefore I support the settlement and your office making it become 
a reality. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Fylypowycz
    CC: Sen. Rick Santorum



MTC-00026702

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:20am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    In my option I think the Microsoft settlement is fair, lets not 
let the lobbies take control. Get on with it.. End it now.
    Fred Gedney
    New Smyrna beach Fl.



MTC-00026703

From: Richard Mundwiller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support of the settlement agreement 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft in their ongoing 
antitrust case. As a consumer, I find the terms of the settlement 
and Microsofts concessions to be fair, and I am in favor of ending 
the case in the quickest manner possible.
    The government's antitrust case has been ongoing for three 
years, but the changes Microsoft has agreed to will allow them to 
operate legally and promote a competitive marketplace. Ending the 
case will better allow Microsoft to develope new technology and 
promote its existing products. Under the settlement, Microsoft will 
now, for example, be required to adhere to a uniform pricing list 
when licensing Windows out to the twenty largest computer makers in 
the nation. With the current slump in the economy, Microsoft's 
continued financial success is important on a national scale. I 
would like to see the matter resolved according to the terms of the 
agreement.
    Cordially yours,
    Richard C. Mundwiller
    HCR 70 Box 1147
    Camdenton, Mo. 65020



MTC-00026704

From: PRISCILLA H MORRIN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do not let these special interests defeat the public interest. 
This suit has been ridiculous from the start! What a waist of money 
and time in the courts.
    P. H. Morrin



MTC-00026705

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly believe that this investigation has gone on long 
enough. I also believe that it is in the best interest of all 
parties involved to bring all charges to a close. Money has been 
spent on this investigation that could be used in a much more useful 
way to benefit all Americans. Mr. Gates and Co. have been successful 
due to hard work and presenting products that have been useful to 
the American public.
    My strong recommendation is that time has come to bring this to 
an end.
    Sylvia Bailey Butler
    North Carolina



MTC-00026706

From: Harold Hutchison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support this settlement only because it does not appear that 
this frivolous case will be completely tossed.
    I have serious concerns about the fairness of the Findings of 
Fact in this case issued by Judge Jackson, who had been giving media 
interviews during the case.
    I also question the fact that AOL/Netscape has filed its own 
suit using these Findings of Fact. This leads me to believe that 
their complaints were motivated solely to send the DOJ on a fishing 
expedition that could be used against Microsoft later. There are 
still alternatives to Windows as an operating system: There is 
Linux, and there is a competing line of computers in the Macintosh. 
My brother was able to find copies of Linux and install them. 
Macintosh is also an alternative for those who do not wish to use 
Windows. To say Microsoft has a monopoly is a pretty big stretch in 
my opinion.
    From my understanding the browser wars involved some fierce 
competition, and there were probably a few too many elbows thrown by 
Microsoft. However, this settlement should address the situation 
while ending a

[[Page 27859]]

case that should not have gone as far as it has.
    Personally, I'd have felt better had the Findings of Fact and 
the Conclusions of Law been thrown out altogether, and Microsoft had 
been granted a new trial. However, a settlement that keeps things at 
the status quo is one that I can live with. Given the war on 
terrorism, this case needs to be resolved quickly, even if the 
settlement is less than perfect. Every dollar spent on this case is 
money that does not go to protecting us from a threat that is 
clearly worse than any theoretical threat posed by Microsoft.
    This settlement is, on balance, in the best interest of the 
public, and I support it.
    Sincerely,
    Harold C. Hutchison



MTC-00026707

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:26am
Subject: Settlement
    Although I don't believe the justice department or any others 
should have filed suit against Microsoft, primarily because it seems 
to me to be an illegal lawsuit, I suggest you approve the Microsoft 
settlement and get on with life
    Gene Cunningham, 15645 130th St, Wellsburg, Iowa 50680



MTC-00026708

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:30am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I think the settlement is fair and just.
    There is no need to destroy them any further.
    yours truly
    Jerome Seward



MTC-00026709

From: rshelton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Whom it may concern...
    I support the antitrust settlement between Microsoft, the DoJ 
and nine states.
    I believe this settlement to be in the best interest of our 
nation and struggling economy only because it is the ``best 
deal'' that can be struck. This ill-conceived action (the 
antitrust suit) was a major contributor to our present 
``line'' of the stock market and our economy as a whole. I 
am appalled that various levels of government are engaged in such an 
apparent money-grab.
    How could I hold such an opinion? By closely observing the 
progress and aftermath of the tobacco fiasco.
    Signed,
    Robert and Linda Shelton
    (Non-smokers)



MTC-00026710

From: Don Maddux
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft
    I think the government should get off Microsoft's back. This 
could have been one of the major contributors to the economy slow 
down. The only thing they are guilty of is running an outstanding 
company. They shouldn't be penalized for being good at what they do. 
The government should spend this time routing out waste in 
government spending, if it's looking for a real crime. Perhaps with 
a comprehensive look at the crime of government employee 
malingering, extravagant retirements, wages, benefits programs and 
job protections policies, you would better spend your time.
    Don Maddux
    Prudential Commercial Resources Realty, Inc.
    Phone (816) 931-3101 Fax (816) 531-1760
    mailto:[email protected]
    3101 Broadway, Suite 300
    Kansas City, Missouri 64111



MTC-00026711

From: Ann Clodfelter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please note the attached letter in support of a settlement in 
the Microsoft suit.
    Thank you.
    Ann Clodfelter
    Charlotte, NC
     
3166 Heathstead Place
Charlotte, NC 28210
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I support the settlement that was 
reached in November. Too much Government intervention into business, 
big or small, hinders the free enterprise system, research, and 
innovation.
    Microsoft has agreed to all terms of this settlement, including 
terms that extend beyond the original issues of this lawsuit and has 
agreed to disclose more information about certain internal 
interfaces and protocols implemented in Windows.
    To continue dragging on the lawsuit is wasting resources, both 
private and public. I hope that you will support this settlement so 
Microsoft and American business can move forward. Thank you for your 
time.
    Sincerely,
    Ann Clodfelter



MTC-00026712

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear U.S. Department of Justice Representative:
    I write this letter to encourage rapid closure on the Microsoft 
settlement. As a technology professional and businessman, I have 
chosen Microsoft products and services when they meet my 
requirements, and have chosen competitive products in many other 
cases.
    Microsoft does dominate the industry, but that has made it 
easier for developers to focus on our projects at hand. One example 
is the ability to focus on a single browser under which our web 
applications can operate. The Windows operating systems and web 
server software like IIS have given us access to systems that are 
easy to use and understand so that we can finish our development 
projects on time.
    I, for one, chose to do most of my development in Macromedia's 
Cold Fusion--a competitor to one of Microsoft's product. CF 
allows me to do the things I need to quickly. I am free to chose a 
Microsoft competitive product and that works for me.
    It is time to move beyond this case. Microsoft will always face 
competitors and some of them will effectively compete to get their 
products and services to market. At the point that Microsoft uses it 
monopoly powers to stifle competition in the future, those companies 
are free to approach the U.S. government to have their case heard. 
It is time to close this book and allow Microsoft to continue its 
focus on bringing additional products and services to the 
marketplace.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Carney
    President
    Ishtot, Inc.
    [email protected]
    703.869.1088
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026713

From: David E. Colbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. Quit persecuting companies, specifically 
Microsoft, who make a superior product and DON'T GOUGE the public.
    No one is stopping their competitors from producing a better 
product, but the government(s) sure as hell will stop Microsoft from 
making a better product by removing all incentive to improve. Wise 
up you bureaucratic bumbling idiots!
    David E. Colbert
    Sarasota, FL 34241



MTC-00026714

From: Will von Reis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:40am
Subject: MSFT is monopoly
    As a software developer who uses Microsoft products, I am 
grateful that they often give away development resources in order to 
promote the use of their technology. For example, they announced 
that in the next quarter they will be giving away their .NET 
development environment for free (it is currently priced $600-$800). 
This is great, but it also tells me that Microsoft sees a threat to 
their business coming from this area of technology. As a developer I 
have witnessed them taking aggressive steps against many other 
technologies that they must have seen as threats to their core 
desktop business. It is difficult to evaluate the real threats posed 
because most of these other initiatives floundered soon after 
Microsoft introduced their own. Some examples off the top of my 
head.
    MS Win CE -> 3COM Palm
    MS Direct Draw -> OpenGL

[[Page 27860]]

    MS Internet Explorer -> Mozilla/Netscape
    MS OCX Web Objects -> Java Applets
    From my perspective, MS clearly uses their dominance in one 
arena to squash innovation in others.
    SOLUTION: prevent MS from selling to OEMs. Consumers must 
install windows themselves. IE you can't buy a machine with windows 
pre-installed.
    This forces them to be vulnerable to the same market forces as 
everyone else- CONSUMER CHOICE!
    Will von Reis
    1737 West Arbor Dr.
    San Diego, CA 92103



MTC-00026715

From: Paul (038) Elda Reichard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please ratify the Microsoft agreement and end this costly and 
wasteful law suite. Let those who are jealous of the success of 
Microsoft, produce their own useful products rather than tear down 
the innovative products of their competitor.
    Paul Reichard
    Senior Citizen



MTC-00026716

From: Jean Hanamoto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good morning;
    I must comment on the blind and frustrating way that the court 
has handled the Microsoft settlement. Bill Gates'' 
megalomaniacal outlook on the computer world is frightening! 
Microsoft's need to overpower and ruin other businesses is a slap in 
the face to our system of justice, fairness, and competition. The 
most hideous part is that they're still being allowed to make 
exactly the same moves, and are still taking full advantage of their 
power over the internet to try to crush any and all that might 
challenge them. The arrogance and willfulness will not stop until 
the courts do something drastic.
    Please don't let Microsoft bully their way into being the only 
choice we have.
    Sincerely;
    Jean Hanamoto
    Jean's Artworks
    16632 Lone Hill Dr.
    Morgan Hill, CA 95037
    (408) 776-8664
    [email protected]



MTC-00026717

From: Andrew Zanevsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    In this e-mail I submit my opinion on the antitrust settlement 
between Microsoft, the Department of Justice and nine states.
    I think that the terms of the settlement are fair to all parties 
and should be approved. I believe that further litigation against 
Microsoft would be detrimental to the health of the industry and the 
U.S. economy as a whole. It could only benefit some of the Microsoft 
competitors and not the consumers.
    I am a professional computer database administrator, consultant, 
speaker, author, and business owner. My opinion is based on 15 years 
of industry experience, direct involvement in associations of 
computer professionals, my expertise in the field, and contacts with 
colleagues.
    I clearly see that if Microsoft is prevented from adding new 
features to their products, the industry will stagnate. It will lead 
to increased costs of software for consumers, because we will be 
forced to buy and integrate numerous products in order to conduct 
our business. Introduction of new features in the operating system 
is a natural process of software systems evolution. I believe that 
any continuation of the legal process against Microsoft will only 
suffocate progress in computer systems, not invigorate it.
    Technology in our industry changes so fast, that Microsoft's 
lead in operating systems does not guarantee it's dominant position 
in related markets. We have seen numerous software companies 
successfully grow from nimble startups to multi-billion dollars 
corporations. This happens when they have a truly innovative and 
useful products. But Microsoft often comes up with a better solution 
and then consumers make their choice. As an industry expert and as a 
consumer, I urge you to approve the proposed settlement terms and 
allow Microsoft to continue its research, development, and 
innovation.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Zanevsky
    President
    AZ Databases, Inc.
    [email protected]
    tel. 847-919-7002



MTC-00026718

From: Tobin Fricke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I am writing to express my comments on the Proposed Final 
Judgment (PFJ) in the anti-trust case United States versus Microsoft 
under the provisions of the Tunney Act. I am a citizen of the United 
States, a resident of the State of California, and a student of 
Computer Science at the University of California.
    I believe that the proposed final judgment is insufficient to 
end Microsoft's illegal monopoly. The PFJ would do little to improve 
the competition in the markets dominated by Microsoft.
    One of the main provisions of the PFJ intended to facilitate 
competition in the markets currently controlled by Microsoft's 
monopoly is provision D in section III which requires that Microsoft 
disclose to all interested parties the programming interfaces (APIs) 
used by ``Microsoft Middleware'' to communicate with the 
``Windows Operating System,'' and then only when new major 
versions of ``Microsoft Middleware'' are released.
    I believe that this requirement must be strengthened. In its 
current form, provision III-D gives Microsoft an advantage 
over possible competitors, because Microsoft would only be required 
to release API information after Microsoft itself has released a 
product relying on these APIs. Thus, Microsoft will always have a 
``head start'' over possible competitors.
    Microsoft will necessarily have better knowledge of the APIs, 
and hence a significant advantage over any possible competitors in 
software development, so long as it is Microsoft itself who 
implements the APIs in the operating system product.
    Moreover, the release of API specifications is limited to those 
used by ``Middleware.'' This is an unnecessary limitation; 
Microsoft should be required to release all API information used by 
any product, not just ``middleware.''
    The only possible remedy to this situation that will result in 
fair competition of software that runs with Windows Operating System 
Products is complete separation between Operating System and 
Application Software divisions within Microsoft.
    Clear demarkation between OS and application software is not 
just good for competition, but it is a fundamental engineering 
principle of computer science. Better specified interfaces will 
improve security and possibly reduce the thread of worms such as 
NIMDA, which have caused billions of dollars of damages to 
organizations dependent upon Microsoft software. Third party 
application software developers should communicate with the 
Microsoft Operating System (OS) division exactly in the same manner 
as the Microsoft Application Software division communicates with the 
Operating System division. For example, the OS division would 
publish API specifications, and only after this publication would 
the application developers (both Microsoft and third-party) be able 
to use this information. This will result in fair competition in the 
market of software running on the Windows platform.
    This separation would result in a cleanly specified set of 
interfaces used by non-operating system software to communicate with 
the Windows Operating System. Not only would this result in fair 
competition amongst application software developers, but it would 
also make it possible for a third party to implement a product to 
compete with the Windows Operating System itself that would be able 
to run all of the software that can be run by the Windows Operating 
System itself.
    The WINE project is one such effort of a third-party 
implementation of the Windows Operating System API. However, the 
WINE project's progress has been chronically plagued by the poor 
documentation and secret nature of some aspects of the Windows API. 
A fully documented Windows API would eliminate this hurdle, and 
allow projects such as WINE to compete with Microsoft's operating 
system products.
    The logical means of implementing this separation is to split 
Microsoft into multiple entities: one corporation to produce the 
Windows Operating System, one corporation to produce other 
application software, and possibly other corporations to handle 
other Microsoft projects, such as Windows Media Player and 
Microsoft's media interests.

[[Page 27861]]

    In the past, corporations have been broken up as a means towards 
eliminating monopolies. The breakup of AT&T into long-distance 
and research divisions and the regional bell operating companies, 
for example, benefited consumers in numerous ways, bringing 
competition, innovation, diversity, and prosperity to the 
telecommunications industry. The breakup of Microsoft would have 
similarly beneficial effects.
    Tobin Fricke
    25001 El Cortijo Lane; Mission Viejo, CA 92691-5236



MTC-00026719

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please attached document detailing my position on the Microsoft 
settlement.
    Thank-you,
    pat
    803 Knight Court
    Salisbury, MD 21804
    January 22, 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 and give you my thoughts on the 
Microsoft Anti Trust case.
    I feel that this case has gone on far too long without making 
any real progress. Whether or not Microsoft was responsible for any 
wrongdoing, the proposed settlement will certainly restore fair 
competition to the computer industry.
    I work daily with Microsoft products as a Computer Analyst. 
Their products and systems integration have my job a great deal 
easier. They've contributed so much to our economy and have changed 
the technology industry forever. The settlement calls for Microsoft 
to share a lot of their interface design and server protocol with 
their competitors. Additionally, OEM's will be allowed to pre-
install competing products within Windows. If there are any 
problems, there is a Technical Oversight Committee to deal with any 
future violations or problems.
    The proposed settlement is a fair solution to the problematic 
Anti-Trust case. Our country needs to concentrate their efforts on 
other issues and ending this lawsuit is certainly a good way to do 
that. Please accept the settlement and allow our country to flourish 
again.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick Shaner



MTC-00026720

From: Owen Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is the leader in supporting a defined interface as a 
way to allow different groups to work on different components 
without interfering with each other. Applying this to IE, it would 
be great if they unbundled IE and published their interface.
    Microsoft is great but too monolithic. Having them publish their 
interfaces and/or source code would not break them up, but would 
increase competition. Seems a suitable response to the judgement 
against them.
    Owen Cooper



MTC-00026721

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    DONAL MILLER
    2762 TONY DRIVE
    LAWERNCEVILLE, GA 30044-5775



MTC-00026722

From: Vern Alway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The United States DOJ is acting destructively toward an American 
corporation not on any principle, but because of the size and 
success of the victim. If Microsoft had done anything wrong, 
conventional laws of fraud would have been invoked.
    It appears that we have a national policy of attacking the best 
in our system.
    Vern Alway
    Victoria, Texas



MTC-00026723

From: Nick Ferone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Please accept this as a Public Comment by Dominic Ferone, of 
Columbia SC, regarding the Microsoft Settlement.
    ``The Microsoft Case has hurt investors to the tune of more 
than 50 million dollars, and even though I am not one of those 
unfortunate souls, I am a user of Microsoft products and have been 
since 1991. In my opinion, this case is about envy, and a 
competitors ``rights'' to smash his better with the use of 
a government club if he is unable to adequately compete in the free 
market. Settle this squabble and let Mr. Gates continue to own 100% 
of the company he and his partners created. Microsoft innovation in 
programming languages alone has allowed me to venture into a new 
career path, and has directly affected my own life positively. The 
competitors who filed this suit against Microsoft should know that 
if this case is not settled amicably, then I will NEVER use THEIR 
products in the future, and will not recommend them to clients of 
mine.''



MTC-00026724

From: Nathan Lineback
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I recently became aware that I have the opportunity to comment 
on the Microsoft settlement and I felt that I had to say something.
    After reading the settlement it seems to boil down to 
``Microsoft, behave yourself''. This is what they should 
have been forced to do from day one while the trial was going on. 
Much of this is what any sufficiently large well behaved company 
should do voluntarily.
    As a consumer I have been personally harmed by Microsoft's 
actions, and I believe Microsoft needs to be punished for it's past 
actions. I also believe that this settlement will not prevent 
Microsoft from finding ways to continue to abuse their monopoly.
    The part about not having to release documentation regarding 
security APIs and protocols is just plain dumb. If someone can crack 
the security just because it is documented, then the software is bad 
and needs to be fixed. Additionally the availability of information 
about security APIs and protocols are absolutely critical for inter 
operability with non-Microsoft products.
    The settlement implies to me that Microsoft could license the 
API documentation however they want. It is imperative that such 
documentation be public domain, otherwise Microsoft could use their 
license to exclude certain types of developers.
    As for how to properly punish them and make sure they never 
again do what they did, I am afraid I don't have the answers. I only 
know this settlement won't do the trick for the long run.
    Thank you for your time.
    Nathan Lineback
    416 Walker St.
    Villa Rica, GA 30180



MTC-00026725

From: Merlin Grue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Merlin Grue and I reside in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. I 
am sending this message to express my concern about the efforts of 
some individuals, corporations, and government agencies to inhibit 
Microsoft's right to compete in the market place and provide quality 
products at a fair price to me, the consumer.
    If I wished to purchase products from one of Microsoft's 
competitors, I am free to do so, without any intervention from 
local, state, or federal government.
    The only ones who profit from litigation of this sort are the 
attorneys.

[[Page 27862]]

    Merlin Grue



MTC-00026726

From: Anthony Mullen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:13am
Subject: (DOJ Microsoft)
    Dear DOJ
    I would like to say that the proposed settlement with the 
government and Microsoft will do little to stop this companies 
dominant position of the market and the industry.The measures need 
to be much more substantial to promote innovation and choice to the 
customers.We need greater competition which will lead to more and 
better products at more affordable costs.



MTC-00026727

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:17am
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,
    edwin potter
    hc 4 box 184e
    brightwood, VA 22715



MTC-00026728

From: Evolving old
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/27/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a computer professional and an American citizen I believe the 
the antitrust action against Microsoft is unwarranted and unjust. 
For the record, I have chosen to use other operating systems (Linux, 
various flavors of Unix, Mac, and the OS400) instead of Microsoft's 
wherever possible. The consumers who have bought the Windows 
operating systems have done so of their own free will. To say that 
Microsoft has a monopoly is an opinion born out of ignorance and 
laziness.
    I do not like their products but I think it is unfair that the 
government helps their competitors by bringing this suit. It is 
anti-democratic, anti-freedom, and born of and supported by jealousy 
of companies who cannot run a business as well as the management of 
Microsoft.
    Please bring this episode to a close by terminating the 
antitrust action against Microsoft immediately. Please stop wasting 
the taxpayers money. Please stop enriching trial lawyers at the 
expense of productive individuals and organizations. Please stop 
granting government favors to jealous business competitors. Please 
stop government actions which hamper the creative endeavors and job 
creating abilities of businesses everywhere.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Puetz (native born U.S. Citizen)
    Programmer/Analyst
    25162 Southport Street
    Laguna Hills, CA 92653-4923



MTC-00026729

From: Jack Sheehan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Attached is a letter summarizing my opinions on the Microsoft 
Settlement. I believe that Microsoft provides products of superior 
quality at fair prices. I do not believe that their business tactics 
are greatly different from others in the business. With regard to 
monopoly, there is competition, and there are other choices.
    I personally would like to see this matter resolved as 
expeditiously as possible.
    Thank you,
    Jack Sheehan
    45 Lenor Drive
    Harwinton, CT 06791
    860-485-1260
    [email protected]
John J. Sheehan
45 Lenor Drive
Harwinton, CT 06791
January 27,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
settlement that was reached in November between Microsoft and the 
government. I support this settlement and feel that it will serve in 
the best public interest. I believe this litigation battle is costly 
and a waste of resources. I urge you to support this settlement.
    I also believe that Microsoft provides excellent products at 
acceptable prices. With regard to the monopoly argument, other 
products are available to those who wish to use them. Microsoft 
should not be penalized because their products are clearly superior 
to products offered by their competition.
    The settlement was reached after extensive negotiations. 
Microsoft has agreed to all terms and conditions of this agreement, 
including: designing future versions of Windows to make it easier to 
install non- Microsoft software and licensing its Windows operating 
system products to the 20 largest computer makers on identical terms 
and conditions. A technical oversight committee has been created to 
monitor Microsoft compliance to this agreement.
    During these difficult times, one of our highest priorities 
should be to boost our economy and aide our businesses. Microsoft 
should not be stifled or hindered; this will not benefit anyone. 
Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Sheehan



MTC-00026730

From: lucy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lucy McClusky
5 Brian Road
Edison, NJ 08817
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I am writing to offer my support for the 
settlement that was reached in the anti- trust lawsuit between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice last November. Microsoft has 
been wonderful in making the technology industry what it is today. 
Yet the industry is hurting as a result of this litigation, and I 
would like to see an end to it as soon as possible.
    Other companies have had the ability to compete with Microsoft, 
and yet they simply have not been able to do so. Microsoft should 
not be punished for this, although the company made certain 
concessions that have allowed this case to be settled so that this 
whole matter can be put to rest. Microsoft will share information 
with its competitors on the Windows operating system, and allow 
computer makers to ship non-Microsoft products for use within 
Windows without any retaliation. The three person technical 
committee that will be established will ensure Microsoft's full 
compliance with these and all other terms of the settlement.
    Thank for reaching this compromise with Microsoft. The economy 
will be revitalized once this case is over, and the technology 
industry can get back to the success it had before this lawsuit 
began over three years ago. I look forward to the finalization of 
this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Lucy McClusky



MTC-00026731

From: Dan Harper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Whatever happened to crime and PUNISHMENT????
    A criminal is suppose to be punished, not rewarded.... What 
next, free condoms to rapists, a free case of scotch and a tank of 
gas for anyone who kills someone DWI ??
    The proposed settlement, is a payoff... Pure and simple... We 
all knew President Shrub was going to sell out the American citizens 
to play nice with his big business buddies who got him elected... 
But this is bad news for everyone but Microsoft.... And I thought 
they were the bad guys???
    If indeed the Department of Justice has anything to do with 
justice... Then a solution that involves punishment for the 
monopolistic practices must be brought forward... Otherwise, we 
might as well

[[Page 27863]]

rename your little club to the Department of Just Us... (* The rich 
and shameless)
    Sincerely,
    Dan Harper



MTC-00026732

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please stop all action against Microsoft. This only hurts us 
all. The proposed settlement is more than enough punishment.
    Manny Alegria4513 S. 14th Ave.
    Tucson, Az. 85714
    (520) 294-8995



MTC-00026733

From: Ben Schilke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to ask that you reject the settlement proposal 
between Micorsoft and Department of Justice that is before your 
court. Microsoft (``MS'') is a company that practices 
unfairly and illegally in the software and operating system markets.
    Time and again MS has used it's monopoly power or any other 
advantage to wrongfully gain market share and greater control of 
these markets. Since being charged with anti-competitive behavior, 
MS has shown in its defense of these charges the complete disrespect 
for the idea of fair competition that matches their behavior. To 
claim responsibility for the innovation in software of the last 
decade or so is rediculous--those familiar with the software 
industry knows that MS is not an innovator, but rather borrows or 
steals so much of what has been considered innovative. The idea that 
there needs to be a consistent platform so that there is 
compatitibilty across computers is also bogus: look at how 
seemlessly MacOS and Windows files are now translated from one to 
the other. And consider it's proposal a few weeks ago that it donate 
supposed millions of dollars of software to under-privelege school 
systems. What kind of company has the arrogance to suggest that 
``dumping'' a product into the one market they have not 
yet concord (the education market) is a fitting punishment!?!
    MicroSoft must not be allowed to enter into this proposed 
settlement with the Department of Justice if current and potential 
competitors are to be allowed a chance to compete and provide 
consumers with real choices in the software market.
    Ben Schilke



MTC-00026734

From: Tom Voorheis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am sending this e-mail in regard to the proposed settlement in 
the US vs. Microsoft Antitrust case. The proposed settlement leaves 
to many open doors to Microsoft to simply work around them, and 
becomes simply a road bump in Microsoft's domination of the market, 
rather then its intended purpose to allow for competitors to do what 
competitors are actually meant to do. compete. I very much urge you 
to reconsider many of the definition of what Microsoft must do, 
particularly in regards to the distribution of information regarding 
all the of the APIs which power all Microsoft windows devices, that 
is all devices which are run by the Win32 APIs. I strongly urge you 
to reconsider this settlement, for i disagree with it strongly for 
it does not fulfill the purpose that it was meant for. my opinion is 
stated.
    Tom Voorheis, Ann Arbor, MI



MTC-00026735

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:26am
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,
    Jane Ricketts
    1907 Ferndale
    Ames, IA 50010



MTC-00026736

From: Paul W. Kleinknecht
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge
    I would like to express my concern about the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I use many Microsoft products and have enjoyed using 
them.
    I am concerned that if they have broken the law and are not 
punished, it could have a negative affect on future computer 
products. I think that Microsoft should be held accountable for 
their actions. Thank you for your consideration.
    Paul Kleinknecht
    Paul Kleinknecht
    4500 Mid. Mt. Vernon Rd.
    Evansville, IN 47712
    812-421-0043 phone/fax
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026737

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:33am
Subject: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
    Attached is the file that I have sent to Representative Ric 
Keller.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Bradley
1229 Foxden Road
Apopka, FL 32712
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am taking this time to write you regarding the Anti-Trust 
lawsuit that continues to plague the Microsoft Corporation because I 
feel your actions on this issue will make a dramatic impact on the 
American consumer. In spite of the broad range of restrictions 
imposed, Microsoft's competitors are actively trying to undermine 
the settlement during this review period. Therefore, it is even more 
urgent that the government hears directly from the consumers who 
will be directly impacted by this on-going lawsuit.
    Microsoft has undergone three arduous years of scrutiny under 
the American government and I believe the settlement plan is fair 
and just. The fact that Microsoft has agreed to not retaliate 
against other computer competitors, allow competitors to develop 
software that matches their own, as well as disclose for use by its 
competitors various interfaces that are internal to Window's 
operating system products, tells the public and the government that 
Microsoft is dedicated to supporting a pro-competitive market.
    Please take note of my opinions and consider the consumers first 
when making a decision that will continue to affect the American 
people. I thank you greatly for your time and consideration in this 
crucial matter that plagues the ethics of the American tradition.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Bradley
    cc: Representative Ric Keller



MTC-00026738

From: Joseph A. Sandova
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft
    Consumer interests have been well served. It's time to end this 
costly litigation, NOW!
    Thank You,
    J. A. Sandova
    3028 N. 3rd. Street
    Whitehall, PA 18052



MTC-00026739

From: Mark Gisleson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reading extensively on the proposed MS-DOJ settlement, I 
am flabbergasted by Microsoft's continued and aggressive disregard 
for laws they find to be ``inconvenient'' to the 
maintenance of their illegally obtained monopoly. The current 
proposed DOJ settlement prompts me to wonder if there is anything 
short of murder that will get a billionaire arrested?
    This is not a settlement, it's a cave in to a thuggish company 
run by Enron-like monsters who refuse to understand that the law 
applies to them as well. I would rather see every purse snatcher and 
petty thief

[[Page 27864]]

released from jail than to see one more white collar criminal go 
free.
    Microsoft is overwhelmingly guilty of grossly abusing the law 
and the markets. Failure to punish them will result in a grievous 
weakening of our national defense, but the DOJ seems to understand 
security flaws about as well as you seem to understand the laws 
regarding full disclosure, ethics, and the binding nature of 
regulations and laws.
    Mark Gisleson
    GISLESON WRITING SERVICES
    P.O. Box 14264 St. Paul MN 55114
    651 644-6408 phone
    651 645-3530 fax
    [email protected]
    www.gisleson.com



MTC-00026740

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I support the present settlement of the Microsoft case and think 
further litigation is inappropriate
    Jerry



MTC-00026741

From: Walter Marlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I wish to note my full support for the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement currently undergoing public comment.
    Innovation, improvement, and enhanced functionality are 
essential for all products offered to consumers, whether 
automobiles, electronics, software or other. Microsoft provides 
these in all of their software products and consumers benefit 
greatly as a result.
    Microsoft (and consumers) must be able to move on and continue 
to improve and to benefit. Finalizing the proposed settlement is key 
to this, and one significant step towards improving the economy.
    Allowing a small but extremely vocal group of failed 
competitors, Microsoft ``bashers'' and their political 
cronies to interfere with this settlement with yet more political 
and litigious obstructionism will only further stagnate the industry 
and economy, when we could instead be moving forward.
    Rigorous competition is key to our economy and to consumers 
getting the most ``bang for the buck''. But when some 
competitors retreat to the courtroom rather than the drawing board 
in the face of rigorous competition, everyone loses. It's time to 
put the courtroom behind us and move forward, focusing on market 
competition and technical cooperation that will advance and improve 
the industry, the economy and consumers'' interests.
    Respectfully,
    Walter E. Marlow III
    Electronics Engineer
    16372 Passing Road
    Milford, VA 22514



MTC-00026742

From: reneehudon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the DoJ to accept the antitrust settlement currently 
pending. It has met the standards by the Court of Appeals and it is 
time to move forward. Microsoft is an integral part of our nation's 
economy and now more than ever we need to reinforce our economic 
strength. As one brave American recently said--``Let's 
roll''.
    Thank you



MTC-00026743

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May concern,
    A Citizens Opinion:
    Lighten up on Microsoft. They are to the future what Steel was 
to the Industrial Revolution. This is not an issue for a slighted 
individual judges anger, nor emotional ploys used by competitors to 
gain public sympathy (even if in some part meritorious) to let 
important little tug boats run the great liner onto the rocks.
    Microsoft is led by people who have absolutely no need for 
Money. This fact should help in evaluating motive. I believe these 
people simply enjoy exercising their agile brains, and have basic 
decency, and hope for a better world. They are reasonable scientist/
businessmen, and have no more interest in simply playing life away 
in the pastures of pleasure, than Einstein, Newton, or DaVinci. 
These maligned Microsoft executives are in fact society's, in the 
flesh, Santa Claus, and will be remembered thousands of years from 
now for bring us out of the dark ages.
    Lets not mistake these great people of our era, for the Robber 
Barrons of yester-year. Help them help us all have a better, and 
better world. They have proven themselves a brilliant diamond 
passing light with all but a magical ability to heal in every walk 
of life. Look at the innovation, direct and indirect that we have 
seen in the last ten years. Get sick, go into a hospital, and just 
try to imagine how much of your stay is somehow touched by software. 
That's just one field. What about metalurgy? Factory automation? 
Engineering design. Government resourses. Military implimentation. 
Education. The stock market. Scientific research. And we're just at 
the beginning.
    Miracle Microsoft.. because from small beginnings we have 
witnessed the human seed that will continue to Spawn a new world, 
long, long.. long, after we are all gone. So we'd better be right in 
how we cradle this gifted child, and design the structure in which 
we allow it to grow, healthly. History will look back and say these 
where the Geniuses that got it right, just as we look back on the 
lightbulb and the facilities brought to every site to be able to use 
them, and all things electric. By the simple logical growth set 
about by the good deeds of these great people, we may someday have 
``The one BEST Physics teacher in the world.. in every 
highschool classroom, with teachers of today serving as tutors, 
while the fundamentals are established by world class expertise 
aided by personality, graphics, and professional production aids. 
Most of us had mediocre to TERRIBLE teachers in ALL the sciences in 
highschool, didn't we? This is wasting our mental resourses and 
creating pain and a sense of inferiority, in otherwise smart kids 
who don't realize what happend to them.
    With innovators such as these, we may someday accomplish 
communication with the public to the point that State Governments, 
holy grail that they currently are, may come to look like expensive 
redundancy. We may see a world where false boundaries on a map do 
not provide motive to kill off people on the other side. With 
communication.. the world becomes more homoginized, less dangerous, 
and one people. That's what we really are, here on ``spaceship 
ea rth''. It's hard to imagine waring with Japan or Germany.. 
now. What has changed? We are now interdependent. How did that 
happen. How do we implement it? Could it even exist 
without...software? Could we keep track of it all?
    Ask yourself what YOU are personally doing to accomplish these 
wonderful spin-Offs. If you're like me, the answer is.. well 
personally.. NOTHING. Please help educate those you influence to the 
beauty of the greater picture of our lifetimes. To the extent rules 
are needed for competitions health, make them with input from both 
sides, but don't introduce a welfare state for business, that gives 
a false handicap at the expense of our strongest warrior. This is 
not a game. Nicey-nice has no more place here than on a battlefield, 
and most of us have little if any hands on experience in the mud, 
like the guys who role up their sleeves at Microsoft every day to 
take on the hardest intellectual challenges we can't even imagine, 
for the fun of it. Strange people. Strange love. I'll take it.
    Thanks for your time,
    Paul Larisey



MTC-00026744

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a Microsoft supporter.
    What ever Microsoft has agreed to is OK with me.
    I believe, Microsoft has been attacked by others who could not 
stand good stiff competition and were a lot of crybabies. They could 
have done the same thing to forward their businesses if they had the 
gumption.
    Now please let Microsoft get on with their work.
    Etta Dell Olson
    Elmer A Olson



MTC-00026745

From: Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:41am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    This Settlement is unjust because it still gives Microsoft The 
ultimate control over the market.It still allows Microsoft to sell 
its products at an outrageous amount, because it is needed to run 
any programs in today's market. For example Microsoft is selling a 4 
year old operating System at $200.00, along with all the other 
programs at a ridiculous

[[Page 27865]]

amount. Any Programs out there say you need Windows to run it.
    There are other Operating Systems that are Free but you can use 
a very limited amount of today's programs.. This settlement still 
allows Microsoft to be a monopoly. Which is against the Law.
    Sincerly
    Rosemary Formanek, Florida



MTC-00026746

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:41am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    I work as a systems administrator in the hospitality industry in 
my country Nigeria. Microsoft products have become for us a great 
blessing due to the fact that it has provided an easy to learn, easy 
to support, and easy to use interface and technology.This has also 
led to gainfull employment for youths who otherwise would have 
wasting away under the heat of the African sun admist a constant 
reminder of porverty and underdevelopment.More importantly though is 
that microsft has brought joy to our homes and given a businesses a 
chance to compete and a sense belonging in a global village that is 
our world today.
    The settlement is good and fair. Let the others who are against 
the settlement look for ways to be innovative in their product 
development instead of seeking to tear apart a good thing. Besides a 
good product always sells itself.
    Thank you
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026747

From: Jackie Allison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:41am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    Re: ``Tunney Act'' It is time to end this costly & 
damaging ligitiation.
    Consumer interests have been well served.



MTC-00026749

From: Tuggle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:42am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    It's time we all understand that there is a pervasive 
``corporate culture'' regarding operating in ethical ways: 
``Make me''. So, your honor, this is as good a place as 
any to start. Let the punishment, for bad faith and anti-competitive 
actions backed by corporate officers from the top-down, reflect the 
public interest more accurately than the settlement deemed 
acceptable by the President and the other states.
    This management style has seriously damaged our country. It has 
and continues to demoralize and victimize honest workers all over 
the nation; farmers, factory workers, imported engineers, 
physicians, nursing home aides, etc 
. . . . . . . . .
    Help restore confidence in the American system of justice. Start 
with this decision. Carol Tuggle 117 Charter Oak Rd. Southbury, CT 
06488



MTC-00026750

From: chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:40am
Subject: FW: on the Microsoft case
    Mr. Blumenthal, State Attorney General of CT suggested I forward 
this.
    ``Oakleaf, Christopher'' wrote:
    Dear Mr. Blumenthal,
    While I presume you have some technically astute people 
providing you information, I've not seen anything in the news that 
suggests any one is aware of the current intertwining of the MS 
Operating System and the IE browser. At this point in time, anyone 
updating the browser, say from 5 to 6, is also updating key 
operating system components. MS has also made it very difficult to 
back off an update. Today, if you upgrade from ME to XP, for 
instance, it is not possible to revert to the previous version. The 
upgrade is one way, which was not true when you went from 98 to ME.
    Microsoft never has and never will have any interest in playing 
nice in the sand box. The comment that follows is a perfect example:
    Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said the company had not reviewed 
the Netscape lawsuit and could not comment on specific allegations 
but added:
    ``AOL purchased Netscape for $10 billion, now AOL wants to 
blame Microsoft for Netscape and AOL's own mismanagement.''
    A viewing of ``Triumph of the Nerds'', broadcast on 
PBS from time to time, makes Bill Gates stance towards the rest of 
the industry, and by extension the rest of the country, quite clear: 
Microsoft plays to win and doesn't take prisoners.
    I have been very gratified that your office has continued to 
pursue this issue, as there's nothing that Bill would like more than 
for the pressure to go away.
    An anecdote: Some years ago, when GE was working out the MSNBC 
deal with Microsoft, Netscape was the browser of choice within the 
organization.
    Bill Gates was clearly aware of this. The next release of office 
had not been made available to the company as a site license. Word 
was that the contract negotiations were stalled. There was no 
question in anyone's mind that
    Bill wanted Netscape off the desktop at GE. While I have no 
direct evidence, I would not be particularly surprised if Jack Welch 
didn't tell Bill to take a hike, as the next release of office was 
available immediately after the closing of the MSNBC deal and 
Netscape was not removed from the desktop.
    Regards,
    Chris Oakleaf
    An occasional correspondent
    As a private contractor, the views expressed here are my own and 
do not represent those of any entity I may be working for. Dear Mr. 
Oakleaf:
    Thank you for your recent thoughtful correspondence concerning 
the Microsoft antitrust case.
    As you know, on November 6, 2001, the United States Department 
of Justice and Microsoft filed a proposed settlement. I did not join 
that settlement because I do not believe it would accomplish the 
goals we set when we filed the case. Nor would it accomplish the 
remedial goals set by the U.S. Court of Appeals: (1) to prohibit the 
illegal conduct and similar conduct in the future, (2) to spark 
competition in this industry; and (3) to deprive Microsoft of its 
illegal gains.
    You may also express your opinion to the judge of the federal 
trial court considering this settlement by filing written comments 
with the United States Department of Justice by January 28, 2002, as 
follows:
    Mail: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    [NOTE: Given recent mail delivery interruptions in Washington, 
DC, and current uncertainties involving the resumption of timely 
mail service, the Department of Justice strongly encourages that 
comments be submitted via e-mail or fax.]
    E-mail: [email protected]
    In the Subject line of the e-mail, type ``Microsoft 
Settlement.''
    Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 
1-202-616-9937
    Please keep me informed of your opinions on the case.
    Thank you again for contacting me.
    Sincerly,
    Richard Blumenthal
    Attorney General



MTC-00026751

From: Terry Frederick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:47am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
Terry M Frederick
President
Custom Business Solutions
10308 Metcalf, #151
Overland Park, KS 66212
913-384-3373
[email protected]
    I own a small computer consulting firm in Kansas, and most of my 
business is derived from developing software that runs on Microsoft 
operating systems. I have developed software for over 30 years, and 
from my experience, Microsoft's programming environment for third 
party development on their operating system is the most flexible and 
has the most features of any operating system ever built.
    Microsoft is also one of the least expensive environments for 
developing third party software. The cost of development tools and 
libraries is well within the reach of any small business that 
desires to create new software that will run on Microsoft's 
operating systems. The main reason I chose to specialize in 
Microsoft development was due to the great depth of resources and 
capabilities that are available for software development at a 
reasonable price.
    My business has suffered recently, but not from actions by 
Microsoft. I am constantly competing with an attitude from potential 
customers that believe that Microsoft is a bad or criminal company 
and that they should not develop software on Microsoft's operating 
system and support a bad company. My customers look at this case, 
and read the negative comments about Microsoft in the news, and 
often select non-Microsoft environments for their software 
development. This courts actions, and the

[[Page 27866]]

length of time that these proceedings are taking are creating fodder 
for damage to Microsoft's reputation. The Microsoft competitors that 
are supporting these court actions against Microsoft are generating 
propaganda that takes advantage of the fact that Microsoft is being 
tried for illegal activities.
    I have spent years training to become proficient in Microsoft 
development, and I do not have the resources to train and support 
programmers in all of the other areas of software development.
    The longer this case goes on, the more damage will be done to 
Microsoft's reputation, and to my businesses ability to get new 
work.
    Please end this case. Microsoft's competitors created this case 
to use the resources of the Federal court system to damage 
Microsoft. In fact that is what is happening, and will continue to 
happen as long as this case continues. As you damage Microsoft, and 
Microsoft's reputation, you are damaging thousands of other 
companies that have built their business around Microsoft products. 
Please end this, now.



MTC-00026752

From: Rex A Kofford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:48am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    The settlement as it now stands is fair to all concerned. To 
pursue the matter further will hamper the introduction of new 
products and enrich attorneys.
    Sincerly,
    Rex & Alene Kofford



MTC-00026753

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:48am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    All AOL wants to do is to eliminate competition.
    If Microsoft wants to give their products away, I say great for 
the consumer.
    I love it.
    I am and have been a customer of AOL now for about 5 years and I 
am considering dumping them because I believe they have a monopoly.
    I believe they presently control the Internet and don't want any 
competition.
    Every Microsoft product I purchased, I believe has been a great 
bargain.
    AOL are big cry babies.
    Bob Eddy
    Grand Rapids, Michigan



MTC-00026754

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:52am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft case is a bad thing. I 
find it to be threatening in that it essentially hands the desktop 
computer industry over to Microsoft. I find it offensive that our 
U.S. legal system could contemplate it as a remidy for the injuries 
Microsoft has caused.
    Regards,
    Todd Olson



MTC-00026755

From: Alan Shackelford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:56am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    I consider anything which threatens the open source and free 
software movements to be a threat against me. I have chosen (as a 
free, voting American) not to use Microsoft products. I don't 
believe in the philosophy they adopted, and will not support them by 
using their software, either operating system or application. Please 
be so careful while representing my interests in this settlement. 
Any action which might interfere with the open source and free 
software movements is in direct conflict with my interests, and 
those of millions of other users around the world.
    Thank you for your time, and please resist the temptation to 
cave in and go with Microsoft.
    Alan V. Shackelford
    ShakNet Mail and News



MTC-00026756

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:55am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Fed up with the weight lobbyists play in wrecking havoc in this 
country!
    Stop this nonsense NOW before we put more people out of work 
leaving MORE families without income and children barefoot. There is 
more than enough of this going on in this USA already.
    Stop spending THE PEOPLES MONEY ON THINGS THAT BENEFIT 
WASHINGTON BIG SHOTS RATHER THAN THE MASSES!
    WISE UP!!!
    WISSFIRE



MTC-00026757

From: Chuck (038) Jean Trom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Stttlement.
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft is unconscionable. I 
cannot understand why the government would want to tear down 
American business. This suit attacks the very foundation of what we 
have built this nation upon: free enterprise. The perpetuation of 
this litigation cannot and will not aid this country in any way; 
indeed, it will only hinder the future of America. If we continue to 
attack the best and brightest of this nation, we will end up with 
nothing more than mediocrity.
    The settlement that has been reached in this case must be 
accepted; it is fair, and those who think that it ``does not go 
far enough'' are clearly not searching for a solution to a 
problem, but rather their own gain. Under the terms of the 
settlement, Microsoft will design future versions of Windows to be 
even more compatible with the products of other companies. The 
company will also cease all retaliatory behavior against its 
competitors. The terms of the settlement will be ensured by a three 
person technical committee, which will monitor the future business 
tactics of the company.
    This settlement must be accepted. We cannot allow political 
avarice destroy one of the finest companies ever produced by this 
nation. Thank you for your continued support of American business, 
and for hearing my opinion.
    Sincerly,
    Charles Trom
    3033 Madeira Avenue
    Costa Mesa, CA 92626
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026758

From: Dick (038) Shirley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:56am
Subject: Current Proposed Settlement
    It is time the Government got off the back of Microsoft and got 
beck to work on the current real problems. It appears that since 
Microsoft has not become the giveaway program such as ENRON that has 
participated in that the our Senators and Representatives are trying 
to punish Microsoft.
    The actions in the past of breaking up Hughes Aircraft and 
Hughes Medical Research should have been taken as a lesson.
    Because a person makes a Billion Bucks is no reason to try to 
put him or the Company out of business simply because he/they don't 
buy into enriching elected officials in Government.
    Richard B. Lackie



MTC-00026759

From: Kate Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:56am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Please do not accept the proposed settlement with Microsoft. It 
is not in the public interest. It leaves Microsoft's monopoly 
intact, is imprecise, unenforceable, and allows the company plenty 
of opportunities to exempt itself from important provisions.
    The applications barrier to entry which must be reduced or 
eliminated. Any settlement or order needs to ensure that consumers 
can run any of the 70,000 existing Windows applications on any other 
operating system.
    The settlement must provide ways for any combination of non-
Microsoft operating systems, applications, and software components 
to operate properly with Microsoft products. Consumers must have a 
la carte competition and choice so that they and not Microsoft 
choose the products on their computers.
    The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States are in 
the public interest and completely necessary, but they are not 
sufficient without the additional ones mentioned above.

[[Page 27867]]

    The court is required to hold public proceedings, under the 
Tunney Act, giving citizens and consumer groups an equal opportunity 
to participate, along with Microsoft's competitors.
    Sincerly yours,
    Kate Thompson
    PO Box 48
    South Tamworth
    NH 03883
    603-323-7762



MTC-00026760

From: Brian Allemana
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:59am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    As is the right of every U.S. citizen during the period of 
public commentary that is specified by the Tunney Act, I hereby 
submit my thoughts and opinions regarding the outcome of the anti-
trust trial against Microsoft.
    I am against the current settlement being offered between the 
U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation. Based on 
professional study and experience, I believe Microsoft can and will 
find methods to circumvent this settlement for their own good 
without considering the impact on the general public. The settlement 
must be strengthened before I can accept it as a solution to 
Microsoft's illegal behavior.
    The primordial soup of the personal computer industry began with 
technological hobbyists sharing each other's ideas for the purposes 
of enhancing that technology as well as purely satisfying their 
human curiosities. The Internet, once it became public, took off 
like no other technological development before it, and it is based 
upon open, non-proprietary technologies that are both robust and 
exist solely to serve the public good. Likewise, the PC revolution 
could not have taken off as it did without IBM opening its hardware 
specifications for the world to understand and enhance. Clearly, 
technology thrives in an open, competitive marketplace, not a 
marketplace dominated by a single company.
    Microsoft has strived, more aggressively than anyone else, to 
stifle the competitive nature of the software technology world for 
their own benefit. Judge Penfield Jackson's Findings of Fact make 
this point perfectly clear. Companies such as Apple, Compaq, 
Netscape, Sun, even IBM and Intel, are all cited as having suffered 
business losses due to Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. It is 
clear that Microsoft can no longer be trusted to run their business, 
particularly a monopoly business, in a responsible manner.
    It would be irresponsible of us, as a democratic nation, to 
allow Microsoft to continue striving for complete market dominance 
without any substantial checks and balances in place. The current 
settlement being offered does not provide the fulcrum needed to 
support such balances. It barely takes a step in the right 
direction, and that step will prove meaningless once Microsoft 
begins taking advantage of the enormous loopholes within the 
settlement.
    While the settlement, in spirit, attempts to remedy the 
complaints originally filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, it 
does not, on any realistic level, restrict Microsoft from continuing 
anti-competitive practices. For example, the settlement only 
specifies a few products that Microsoft must open to competition, 
and these are not their most important products nor the products 
most likely to be wielded in their continuation of market control 
(e.g., it specifies Outlook Express and Microsoft Java, but not 
Outlook or Microsoft C#). The settlement also fails to encourage 
competition in the operating system marketplace by not fully 
specifying that Microsoft must not artificially raise the barriers 
to entry to their operating system protocols, or requiring Microsoft 
to publish the specifications when the barriers are raised. This 
allows Microsoft to grossly inhibit developers of competitive 
operating systems and/or applications from having the same access to 
system protocols as Microsoft developed applications (one of the 
major points of contention within the original DoJ complaint).
    Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact outline anti-competitive 
behavior that the proposed settlement barely begins to address. 
There is no requirement for Microsoft to open their file formats, 
minimal requirements to open their networking protocols, and 
licensing fees are not properly regulated. There is actually room 
within the settlement for Microsoft to hinder competition by giving 
unrealistic requirements to competing bodies that try to implement 
available Microsoft protocols (such as requiring a competitor to 
meet unspecified technical requirements seven months prior to a 
``beta test version of [the] new Windows Operating System 
Product'' [section III H.], which, at Microsoft's discretion, 
may be too soon for a competing developer to implement these 
protocols).
    Overall, it is clear that this settlement falls short of serving 
the public interest. There are too many loopholes and freedoms given 
to Microsoft, who, by the course of their own actions, and as 
determined by a federal court and upheld on appeal, has lost their 
right to these freedoms by violating federal law.
    I hope you will take my thoughts and opinions, as well as the 
thousands of other concerned citizens who have voiced their points 
of view, into careful consideration prior to rendering a settlement 
decision.
    Thank you for reading. This message will be duplicated via fax.
    Sincerly,
    Brian Allemana
    Web Developer/Consultant
    773.478.9211
    [email protected]
    http://www.brianallemana.com



MTC-00026761

From: David Yoo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:00pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a uniformly bad idea.



MTC-00026762

From: George Toft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Proposed Final Judgement
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). So as to not waste your time by reproducing the 
analysis here (see above web site), there are a substantial number 
of problems with the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) that render it 
ineffective, making the entire DOJ vs. Microsoft case a waste of 
taxpayer money.
    Regardless of the errors discovered in the original trial, the 
Findings of Fact remain undisputed, and Microsoft must be punished, 
just like AT&T and IBM were for similar transgressions of law.
    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.
    TYhank you for considering my opinion.
    Sincerly,
    George Toft
    3455 West Twain Court
    Anthem AZ 85086



MTC-00026763

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:01pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    My second email.
    AOL is complaining about Microsoft giving their product away.
    In reviewing the Sunday morning paper, I notice so many adds in 
which retailers are giving products away, such as:
    1) Buy one, get one free.
    2) Buy one, get two free
    There are all kinds of ads like the above.
    This includes companies as McDonald's, Meijer, D&W, HP and 
many other companies.
    Are we about to eliminate competition?
    I hope not.
    Bob Eddy
    Grand Rapids, Michigan



MTC-00026764

From: Laura Troth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am just writing to add my voice to this injustice that is 
being done to Microsoft. I always thought that America stood for 
being a ``free'' country, where one could rise to the top 
if smart enough and good enough. Why then is this suddenly being 
punished. Microsoft employees very intelligent people to develop 
computer programs, etc. If the people that they employ are the 
smartest in the field and the products that they develop are way 
ahead of other companies, is that not

[[Page 27868]]

part of what it is to be American. It is not their fault that people 
prefer their products over Apple, etc. I know that I personally used 
a Mac computer before I ever touched anything with Microsoft in it. 
I was amazed at the difference. I actually liked to use the computer 
with the Microsoft products in it. Speaking of monopolies, how is it 
that Microsoft's offer to provide much needed computers in school 
was argued against by Mac--who by the way has the monopoly on 
computers in schools. How is this fair and just to Microsoft. This 
is ridiculous. I guess what makes me even madder is the fact that 
Clinton spent more money chasing down Microsoft for some made up 
propoganda than he did to chase down an known terrorist and 
murder--yes, we know who that is... Bin Laden. Has it occurred 
to anyone that if they had not been persecuting Microsoft, there 
might not have been a Sept. 11??
    Also, it is my believe that competition in business is good. It 
is what drives companies to do better for customers, to develop 
better products, better service, etc. If you take away this right, 
you will find people not satisfied with what is left and they will 
stop buying. How will this help our economy. The bottom like is not 
that Microsoft had a monopoly, but that they had a better product. 
This whole thing needs to end now.
    Sincerely,
    Laura Troth



MTC-00026765

From: Paavo Parkkinen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:10pm
Subject: The Microsoft settlement
    I don't know if non-US citizens are allowed to comment, but I'll 
do it anyway since I feel that the decision affects me also.
    I have never felt the Microsoft monopoly in my life. I learnt to 
use a computer on a MSDOS. At the time, though, there were other 
DOS's and I never felt that MSDOS--even though it was the most 
popular--had a monopoly in the market. At the time Windows 3.1 
came out I was already starting to learn other operating systems. 
And while ``the Microsoft empire'' grew, I started to grow 
away from it. Nowadays I use a Microsoft OS only very rarely. I 
don't have one installed on my home computer and at my school we 
have ample opportunity to use other operating systems. Needless to 
say, I have never felt boxed in by Microsoft or their products.
    But now, with the Internet, I may very well one day find myself 
being boxed out. I do have internet connection at home, and use one 
at school. I use it for school work and for recreation. Especially 
for my school assignments, the Internet is invaluable. Recently I 
have been hearing about Microsofts attempts at changing their 
Internet protocols to be closed to users of other operating systems. 
I fear that this will close me (and countless others) from a large 
portion of the Internet. So I wish the settlement between Microsoft 
and the DoJ to force Microsoft to open their network protocols so 
the Internet can remain the open and free network of information I 
have grown accustomed to it being.
    paavo.
    The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its 
capacity--the rest is overhead for the operating system.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026766

From: Julio Marquez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    As a satisifed consumer of Microsoft products and as a proponent 
of economic freedom, I have supported Microsoft's legal position in 
full from the beginning. Please take this into account when 
determining the DOJ's position in this matter.
    Thank you.
    Julio Marquez
    Managing Director
    GEM North America, Inc.
    712 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor
    New York, NY 10019
    212 582 3400 general
    212 582 1517 direct
    212 265 4035 fax
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026767

From: kin-yip Mok
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    According to the Information on the United States v. Microsoft 
Settlement, I think that it really take action to control the threat 
of Microsoft monopoly power. Since Windows 95 came into the computer 
OS market, all the people change to their traditional OS interface 
to GUI. Because of this OS popular, Microsoft tries to extend their 
empire of Software.
    Remember few years ago, the competition between Netscape and 
Internet Explorer, which Netscape was very popular. Internet 
Explorer was just very weak online browser. And also, IE was only 
covered 20% on the market. Nowadays, its already covered over 80%.
    One thing, I think Microsoft is very bad OS. They always got the 
security problem. Many hackers can easy to hack in your computer 
which is windows OS system. Because of this, the windows OS is 
prohibited in the department of China. On the other hands I really 
dont like Microsoft which is they always buy some very powerful 
software, and then merge into their software system. After that, 
they dont give any support for some old customer which is very 
embarrassing. And then many Microsofts software is extremely 
expensive. Nobody can like it, especially for student.
    We want to use more good and powerful software, and we dont want 
to use only Microsofts software. We have to take very strong action 
to control the threat of empire of Microsoft.



MTC-00026768

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    1/17
    It is my strong recommendation that this case be disposed of 
based on the current recommended settlement. We don't need to keep 
funding lawyers at the expense of the public.
    Leonard Walstad
    [email protected]



MTC-00026769

From: Frederick E. Von Burg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:21pm
Subject: settlement
    Ladies or Gentlemen:
    Please be aware that as a senior citizen I am all for the 
economy-enhancing settlement of the suit against microsoft. Please 
use my views in any way to urge the holdouts to get on the 
bandwagon.
    Sincerely yours,
    Fred Von Burg,
    8 Warren Drive
    Syosset, NY 11791-6328



MTC-00026770

From: lt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to get this case settled now! I am a senior citizen 
who uses Microsoft products and services a great deal of the time 
and have paid close attention to this controversy. The only ones 
opposing Microsoft are self interested parties who want to 
illegitamely wish to profit from this. It's about time to play fair 
and stop the piling on that has been going on far too long.
    Thanks,
    Louis Torraca
    Kailua, Hawaii



MTC-00026771

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to end this matter--it has drug on way too long. 
The public always loses in these cases. Please don't become a 
platform where big crybaby companies attack one another. Microsoft 
is far from perfect and perhaps needed to have their knuckles rapped 
a little, but they are far better than their current attackers.



MTC-00026772

From: Jonathan Lemon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:22pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney act, I would like to voice my displeasure with 
the proposed Microsoft settlement. I strongly believe that the 
proposed remedies do not adequately address the issues, and are not 
in the best interests of the public.
    As a particular example, there is nothing in the judgement that 
would require Microsoft to document network protocol of WMT 
streaming media; without this, there is no chance for any competing 
company to write an application that could work on an alternative 
platform.
    I would also like to add my support to the comments made by Dan 
Kegel at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html .
    Sincerly,
    Jonathan Lemon
    Software Engineer, cisco Systems

[[Page 27869]]

    Stoughton, WI



MTC-00026773

From: Larry Crocker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:28pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    As a consumer I feel that the proposed Microsoft settlement is 
more than fair, more so for consumers than Microsoft. I just hope 
that this settlement does not eventually cost us, the consumer, more 
money!
    Larry Crocker



MTC-00026774

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am a microsoft software consumer. I have never been hurt by 
their policies. To the contrary, If you want your software to 
seemless work, then buy microsoft. If you are inclined to want your 
system to crash, spend hours trying to fix it, and constrantly try 
to get your software to work, then by all means by their competitors 
bloatware. I believe the Dept of Justice is way out of line here, 
resorting to blackmail to assist Microsofts competitors, as they is 
the only way they are real competition. Why don't you ask those 
lousy policitical attourney generals whos software they use?
    If I was Bill Gates, I would make them return all of mine, and 
not allow them to use it, then they would get a taste of their 
competitors junk.
    Making software interoperable has been Microsofts strong suit. 
If their competitors were smart they would have done the same, but 
elected to try and screw the consumer, albet Lotus 123, Work 
perfect.. Just standalone junk software. Give it to the State 
Attourney Generals. Personally I would add a donation to Microsoft 
if they would develop a fund to defeat all these people in the next 
elections.
    David Jessen



MTC-00026775

From: Herbert W Schriever
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement--Approve



MTC-00026776

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:32pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. This is supposed to be a free enterprise 
system. If this keeps up, the incentive to create on the part of our 
society in general will be, if not already, seriously deterred. The 
question now is, who is the Federal Justice Department working for, 
the public or the plaintiff?
    J. T. Jordan



MTC-00026777

From: Joe McCutchen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft
    It is a tragedy and a travesty that the U.S. Government has 
attacked a company because it has been ``too'' successful. 
This is yet another example of government engaging in 
unconstitutional activities and another reason to distrust much of 
what it does.
    The only true monopoly is one with the might of government 
behind it forcing consumers to deal with it, that does not describe 
Microsoft. Let the market decide and stop punishing achievement!!
    Joe & Barbara McCutchen
    2916 Heather Oaks
    Fort Smith, AR 72908



MTC-00026778

From: Rocky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:34pm
Subject: micorsoft
11473 Verna Lane
Woodruff, WI 54568
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am a retired member of the tech industry who is fed up with 
the Microsoft antitrust case. The federal government needs to leave 
Bill Gates and his company alone. Government intervention in this 
matter is no longer necessary.
    With regard to the settlement, Bill Gates has conceded more than 
he had to. One example is the three person technical committee that 
will consist of three software engineering experts. Now, at any 
time, a third entity can dispute any portion of the settlement if it 
feels like Microsoft is not cooperating.
    Bill Gates was being more than fair with this settlement. Now, 
it is the government's job to stay out of it. The country needs, now 
more than ever, to produce new and different types of technology, 
for the sake of our falling economy.
    Sincerly,
    Rocco Caffarella
    cc: Representative Mark Green



MTC-00026779

From: Krish Krothapalli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:38pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    The proposed settlement is BAD.
    It fails to mandate anything to curb Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices. This monopoly has allowed the actual cost of 
using Microsoft products to have an estimated ten-fold (or higher) 
increase over projected costs a decade ago, for certain customers. 
Without alternatives, customers'' hands are tied. Microsoft has 
leveraged a position that is favorable only to itself, and not to 
it's customers. Please do not allow this to continue.
    Thank you,
    Krish Krothapalli, Ph.D.
    Redondo Beach, CA



MTC-00026780

From: Rocky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:37pm
Subject: USAGCaffarella--Rocco--1002--0125
11473 Verna Lane
Woodruff, WI 54568
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am a retired member of the tech industry who is fed up with 
the Microsoft antitrust case. The federal government needs to leave 
Bill Gates and his company alone. Government intervention in this 
matter is no longer necessary.
    With regard to the settlement, Bill Gates has conceded more than 
he had to. One example is the three person technical committee that 
will consist of three software engineering experts. Now, at any 
time, a third entity can dispute any portion of the settlement if it 
feels like Microsoft is not cooperating.
    Bill Gates was being more than fair with this settlement. Now, 
it is the government's job to stay out of it.
    The country needs, now more than ever, to produce new and 
different types of technology, for the sake of our falling economy.
    Sincerly,
    Rocco Caffarella
    cc: Representative Mark Green
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026781

From: Aleatha Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:39pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft proposed settlement is fair for Senior citizens in 
fact, all citizens.. A counter one is not fair to Seniors. I think 
this has drug out too long. Why drag it out any longer, especially 
when the proposed settlement is good.
    I have felt all along that the bickering by some is nothing more 
than jealous on how Microsoft has been so successful. I use 
Microsoft and appreciate all they have done to help us Seniors to 
use the computer.
    Aleatha Carlson
    116 Hahn Rd.
    Westminster, MD 21157-4611



MTC-00026782

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Dear Justice Department,
    I think that Microsoft should not be able to settle and should 
not be able to accept money. I think that settling the case and just 
forgetting about it with the other states is a little like bribery. 
I am glad that some states did not accept Microsoft's settlement 
plan because then Microsoft would have gotten away with monopoly. 
Microsoft already has tons of money so money would not be a big 
problem.
    I was reading the latest cases and noticed that Microsoft was 
trying to request for a 4-month extension on time to challenge the 
dissenting states about remedy proposals. This obviously will give 
Microsoft the advantage they need to win the case.

[[Page 27870]]

    Microsoft's bundling needs to stop because when people buy their 
software, they automatically get Internet Explorer. They don't have 
a choice but to use Internet Explorer. Even though Microsoft's 
bundling effort is very unique and smart, it is causing other 
Internet companies to lose money. Soon, Microsoft will own most of 
the Internet companies if this keeps on going. It will just be like 
John D. Rockefeller's monopoly ideas. He owned oil companies and 
controlled a lot of the oil refineries. Then, in 1879, he owned over 
90% of all oil refineries. Slowly, he took over almost the whole 
process of oil companies. John D. Rockefeller once said, ``It 
is too late to argue about advantages of industrial combinations. 
They are a necessity of Americans to have the privilege of extending 
their business in all the starts of the Union, and into foreign 
countries as well.'' This shows that even back then, people 
thought that monopoly was a necessity in business life. I don't 
think that Americans really need them.
    The recent saying about how Microsoft should stop their 
bundling, is too soft. It won't really do anything because Microsoft 
already has so much software out there that they could stop their 
bundling, but there would already be a lot of Microsoft software out 
their with the Internet service.
    These are just some of my ideas. Thanks for reading it. :)
    From,
    Michelle Liu--Harker School
    8th grade-Mr. Merrill's History 2nd period class



MTC-00026783

From: tom wible
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    An o/s is to applications as the legal system is to individuals 
& businesses: both provide the rules and infrastructure that we 
live under. for 1 company to own both the o/s & apps, where the 
api is analogous to the rules of evidence, is equivalent to enron 
owning the court system, with the laws & procedures 
secret...this is totally unsatisfactory, both as a legal system and 
as a computing platform. the only meaningful solution is splitting 
microsoft into an o/s company & an applications company, and 
requiring the o/s api to be made public.
    Tom Wible
    203 Cardinal Glen Cir
    Sterling, Va 20164



MTC-00026784

From: Wylie Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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.
    The proposed settlement fails to serve the public interest by 
leaving the Microsoft monopoly on operating systems essentially 
intact. This failure further erodes consumer protection by 
preserving the platform by which Microsoft can unfairly and 
illegally arrogate to itself an increased market share of other 
domains, such as internet and office applications.
    In its current state, the proposed settlement is unacceptable. A 
revised settlement should be drafted which curtails Microsoft's 
monopolistic practices.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Wylie Harris
    2126 TAMU
    Rangeland Ecology and Management, Texas A&M University
    College Station, Texas 77843-2126
    979 845 1388



MTC-00026785

From: Rolf Brakvatne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I believe that the only reasonable solution in the Microsoft 
civil suit is to determine total monetary damages (determined by the 
court), who can draw on the funds and how much, and a length of time 
these moneys will be distributed. The money damages should be placed 
in a private fund and administered by an oversight board selected by 
the courts with one person selected by Microsoft.
    Entities drawing on this fund can use the funds for computer 
related purchases only (as determined by the oversight board) and 
are allowed the choose ANY vendor, Microsoft and and non-Microsoft 
products.
    Thank you
    Rolf Brakvatne



MTC-00026786

From: Wynn Wacker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:47pm
Subject: Comments regarding the Microsoft settlement
    Sunday, Jan. 27th, 2002
    This morning at about 8:30 AM, my phone rang with recorded 
message from Americans for Technology Leadership, an organization 
which is quite evidently a front for the interests of Microsoft in 
the anti-trust litigation which it is currently engaged in. The 
requested my comments regarding the settlement and I have decided to 
response.
    I have watched the developments in Microsoft ever since the 
introduction of the first PC. The company has a long history of 
foisting its application software on the public by leveraging its 
near-monopoly in operating systems (MS-DOS, Windows) through the use 
of unethical and illegal trade practices.
    This has been thoroughly documented by Federal prosecutors. I 
can say from personal experience that early Microsoft applications 
software was generally clearly inferior to that of its competitors 
when it was introduced, and it is unlikely that it would have 
penetrated the market to the extent it has in the absence of the 
aforementioned trade practices. I personally resisted using MS 
application software for as long as I could. I was forced to switch 
when so many people in the business I worked were familiar only with 
MS applications because they were the default on shipped computers 
(due to monopoly practices) that I would have to go along. Some of 
my coworkers held out on certain packages, such as spreadsheets, 
until this year. The only individuals I have ever encountered which 
prefer Microsoft applications are those who have never extensively 
used the competitions software.
    I'm a scientist in the R&D department of a medical equipment 
firm, so I make extensive use of the Excel & Word software 
packages as part of Microsoft Office. It is virtually a daily event 
that people come to me asking how to perform simple operations in 
this software. These are people with advanced degrees in engineering 
and science, highly computer literate, and with experience with MS 
software. They are unable to locate the instructions they need in 
the notoriously unhelpful Help instructions included with the 
software, something which has been one of its long-standing 
features. It's also virtually a daily event that some of the 
applications software will crash in the middle of use, accompanied 
by an informative message such as ``This program has performed 
an illegal operation and will be shut down''. It is more in the 
purview of the IT department than mine, but I should also like to 
remind the Court of the incredibly poor track record of MS software 
when it comet to security. Even their security patches sometimes 
need security patches!
    The greatest joke of all is that Microsoft is trying to defend 
itself as a technology leader. It has almost always been a follower, 
coming out with mediocre me-too products and using its monopoly 
power to crush the real innovators. The latest round of litigation 
was set-off by just such an event. Netscape pioneered the 
development of easy-to-use internet browsers and Microsoft came back 
to crush them by giving away its browser through the ruse of 
incorporating it in its monopoly operating system. I know just how 
un-innovative Microsoft is, because, over the years, many of the 
software engineers I have worked with have gone to lengths to escape 
the Windows OS by going to Unix, Linux, etc. They can only due this 
for their personal computers since the business world is trapped in 
the Microsoft monopoly. As were many others, I was heartened when it 
looked like it was possible that the courts might due the right 
thing and split apart the OS and applications portions of Microsoft. 
The company, of course, complained that there was no way to restore 
the competitive environment to the state it was in when it engaged 
in its illegal activities. Of course, under such a doctrine no 
murderer should ever be punished because it is impossible to restore 
the victim to life. Evidently political influence of the variety 
evident in the recent Enron debacle has prevented this wisest of 
settlements. Microsoft now wishes to foist a settlement on those 
litigating on behalf of Microsoft's many victims. I wish to remind 
the Court that a free market can only exist if the rules of honest 
competition are enforced. Microsoft has repeatedly disregarded its 
agreements to abide by fair practices.
    I ask the Court not to interfere with the further pursuit of 
restitution from Microsoft by litigants in this case and wish the 
Court to take cognizance of the arrogant attempt by Americans for 
Technology Leadership to artificially generate support for 
Microsoft.
    Wynn Wacker
    2109 McKenna Blvd.

[[Page 27871]]

    Madison, WI 53711
    (608) 274-1829
    [email protected]



MTC-00026788

From: John & BJ Cochran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
114 Luckie Street
Cartersville, GA 30120
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It is a crying shame that the lawsuit against Microsoft and the 
ensuing three years of litigation have occurred in our country. 
Microsoft was more innovative than any of their competitors and 
therefore became successful. Microsoft really served our country 
beautifully by standardizing the IT sector, creating jobs, 
generating wealth, and making technological breakthroughs.
    This success does not warrant government interference, and if I 
did not know any better, I would say it was this lawsuit that 
contributed to our economy's downfall. The terms of the settlement 
only reflect the intense lobbying efforts of the competition and the 
lack of concern from lawmakers and politicians. Microsoft has to 
disclose interfaces that are internal to Windows operating system 
products and grant computer makers broad new fights to configure 
Windows so that non-Microsoft software programs can more easily 
promoted. These concessions and more are all aimed at helping the 
competition gain an edge they did not have beforehand. None of the 
concessions really protect consumer fights.
    But, I do request that you implement the settlement because 
further litigation would only benefit the lawyers'' pockets and 
would do harm to our nation's public. Please take the fight steps. 
Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    John Cochran
    cc: Representative Bob Bart



MTC-00026789

From: Herbert S. Zischkau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Gentlemen:
    It is time to get off the back of Microsoft and let the economy 
readjust itself. There is too much government interference.
    Sincerely,
    Herbert S. Zischkau, Jr.
    Winter Springs, FL



MTC-00026790

From: Paul W. Kleinknecht
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I do not believe the PFJ is the best solution for the case 
against Microsoft. I do not understand all the ``ins and 
out'' of the case, but I do know that Microsoft has a monopoly 
on operating systems on computers that needs to be dealt with. As 
the break up of ATT has given us better systems and more 
competition, Microsoft also needs to be ``broken up'' to 
bring in more competition and thus better products. The PFJ will 
allow Microsoft to continue as is--this is not right!
    Please do what is right for the American people and American 
businesses!
    Respectfully,
    Sarah (nickname Sally) Kleinknecht
    Sarah (Sally) Kleinknecht
    4500 Mid. Mt. Vernon Rd.
    Evansville, IN 47712
    812-421-0043 phone/fax
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026791

From: Evan D Ravitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Evan Ravitz
1130 11th St. #3
Boulder CO 80302
(303) 440-6838
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse et al,
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft leaves MS in the position 
of controlling the inner workings of most of our computers, which 
position the judges have found MS abused to the detriment of the 
people.
    I believe the best solution is to ``nationalize'' 
their windows operating systems so that a single standard can be 
agreed among competitors, instead of MS continually manipulating 
things to keep others'' software hobbled or buggy.
    The precedent is the US establishing a single standard for 
telephony decades ago so we can all call each other on the phone. 
And the parallel catastrophe is the Babylon of cell phone standards 
which have made cell phones far more prevalent overseas where 
standards exist. Personally, MS was a catastrophe for me because in 
1998 their Outlook program lost my entire address 
book--hundreds of email addresses--as well as thousands of 
emails. It took years to recover.
    As a programmer since 1968, I assure you there is no reason for 
buggy software which wastes so many people-years of time, except 
that MS has eliminated the competition and dominates with their 
inferior, rushed-to-distribution, insecure stuff.
    Sincerely,
    Evan Ravitz



MTC-00026792

From: Mario M. Butter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the provisions of the Justice Department 
settlement with Microsoft due to my understanding that under the 
proposed final order, Microsoft can withhold technical information 
from third parties. This release of technical information is 
required for the development of third party software (escpecially 
public domain software) that will interact with Microsoft products. 
The withholding of this information will serve only to stifle the 
development and implementation of free and commercial software over 
which Microsoft has no control.
    Under this agreement, Microsoft has a number of strategies to 
undermine development of software by other entities, which requires 
a sharing of information. These actions can allow Microsoft to 
continue it's monopoly power and to expand that power further into 
the marketplace. These practices will harm development of 
alternative software, stifle the development of alternative 
platforms and lead to more consumer harm as Microsoft continues to 
increase it's fees for it's monopoly products.
    Mario
    Mario M. Butter
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00026793

From: Michael J. Durkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    Please do not allow Microsoft the easy way out. The proposed 
final judgement should ``terminate'' microsofts illegal 
monopoly, not allow them to thumb their noses at the law because. It 
should also penalize them the amount of any profits made because of 
their past behavior. Finally, it should prevent future 
anticompetitive practices.
    This judgement as it stands will not definitively accomplish the 
above goals.
    Michael J. Durkin
    509 East Colliery Avenue
    Tower City, Pa. 17980
    Phone: 717-647-2502



MTC-00026794

From: Robert Gardner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/27/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Robert Gardner
    3 Splitrock Road
    The Woodlands, TX 77381
    January 27, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.

[[Page 27872]]

    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech 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 A. Gardner



MTC-00026795

From: Joel D Talcott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:12pm
Subject: Every time the government gets involved the consumer pays 
dearly.
    Every time the government gets involved the consumer pays 
dearly. Case in point Gas deregulation. It has cost more poor people 
tom be without heat ,and the cost of gas twice as much as prior.
    Let the companies fight it our! if they cannot compete get out 
of the business or do more to get up to speed.
    KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT.



MTC-00026798

From: Bob Buscaglia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think any settlement that requires Microsoft to have to pay 
anything is totally ridiculous and I cannot believe you are wasting 
your time with this. This suit was initiated by Microsoft's 
competitors-- some of the largest and most successful 
technology companies in this country.
    Recently in Omaha, Barnes & Noble moved into a mall. part of 
their stipulations was the mall had to close down all other 
booksellers. You mean to tell me that is legal and what Microsoft 
does is not?
    So they bundle other products with Windows? Anyone is free to 
swap out any software for other products. We don't tell carmakers 
what type of parts to put into cars, why should we do the same with 
PC makers? And it is much easier to change an Internet browser than 
an automobile engine.
    Robert Buscaglia
    Omaha, NE



MTC-00026799

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to say that the current proposed settlement is no 
good as written. It will not stop the anti-competative tactics of 
this company, and does nothing about all the harm allready done.
    Andrew James Alan Welty



MTC-00026800

From: Hana
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this settlement is bad. It is just a slap on the wrist 
for Microsofts obvious attempt to use its monopoly to prevent fair 
business practices. Please do not allow this settlement to go forth.
    Yozo Horiuchi
    Bayside, New York



MTC-00026801

From: Grant Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed Microsoft settlement will be 
ineffective in preventing future abuse of their monopoly.



MTC-00026802

From: Howard Classen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an end-user of Microsoft products, I disagree with the 
proposed settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft. 
There should be NO company in the United States which, through 
various means, has been enabled to monopolize a critical market. 
There really is no meaningful competition remaining in PC operating 
systems, office integrated software or internet browsers.
    Any settlement needs to promote the ability of others to compete 
in these critical software applications and assure proper monitoring 
with timelines to accomplish remedies. This might mean opening 
codes, spin off of segments of Microsoft, large financial penalties 
for non-compliance, etc.
    The proposed settlement is too little too late. Users will not 
have choice and competition will not be created to produce the 
needed innovations important for businesses and individuals.
    Howard Classen
    1075 Elkhorn Road
    Royal Oaks, CA 95076-9200
    831.728.4248
    [email protected]



MTC-00026803

From: N. W. Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please bring an end to this litigation for economy's sake.
    [email protected]
    N. W. Davis
    1102 Mayberry Drive
    Tahlequah OK 74464



MTC-00026804

From: Geri Zahner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a normal consumer who has no choice but to use Microsoft's 
operating systems as a result of the de facto monopoly held by 
Microsoft, I strongly urge that Microsoft be prohibited from 
requiring the use of its Internet Explorer browser as a required 
part of its operating system. This requirement has the very 
transparent goal of driving all other browser developers out of 
business and making the access to programs by users of non-Windows 
platforms impossible. (Microsoft realizes that both Windows based 
and non-Windows based programs can be operated on multiple platforms 
through the use of Java--If Microsoft succeeds in monopolizing 
the browser market, it will be in a position to effectively kill the 
use of Java as a means of developing software that functions on any 
but the Windows platform.) Microsoft itself recognizes that the 
browser capabilities and the operating system are totally distinct: 
they have always marketed and continue to market and supply their 
browser as a completely separate software to be used either on its 
own Windows platform or on other non-Windows platforms. By 
continuing to allow Microsoft to use tacitly illegal sales and 
coercive agreements with PC manufacturers and the various Internet 
Service Providers, etc., the Justice Department will be supporting 
and furthering the illegal existence and growth of a monopoly to the 
great detriment of public at large, not just in the U.S., but the 
world at large.
    Please put a stop to Microsoft NOW, so the freedom of choice is 
not removed from the market place! If Microsoft is not prohibited 
from continuing on its present course during the resolution of the 
lawsuits and appeals, all competitors will have been destroyed 
during this process and, regardless of the legal results, Microsoft 
will have succeeded in its goal of being the ``only game in 
town''!
    Thank You!
    Geri Zahner
    8825 Jellison Court
    Westminster, CO 80021
    303-440-7726
    Fax 303-939-8353



MTC-00026805

From: Jeanne Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft anittrust settlement
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to encourage you and the Department of 
Justice to accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. This case has 
been dragged out for three long years; it is time to put an end to 
it. A settlement is available and I personally do not believe that 
the terms are even fair, yet,
    I would like to see the government accept it.
    In order to put this issue behind them, Microsoft has agreed to 
many concessions, some of which I feel are uncalled for. Amongst 
other terms, Microsoft has agreed to release part of the Windows 
base code to its competitors. Give me a break! Requiring such action 
is hogwash and makes me question how much the Department of Justice 
values things like patents. Why bother to innovate if your invention 
will be forcibly stolen from you if it's successful? Thank goodness 
for Microsoft's success! WHEN WILL THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
RECOGNIZE THAT THE DOMINANCE OF THE WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM IS A

[[Page 27873]]

GOOD THING!!! Stop punishing the company that brought it to us!! 
This idea that we consumers have been somehow shorted because of a 
monopoly is ridiculous. There are times when it is BEST to have a 
monopoly for the sake of consistency, ease of use, ease of 
communication, etc.
    Microsoft has been a benevolent leader during the technology 
explosion that we have been experiencing. Let them continue to lead!
    I'm sick and tired of all the squabbling. Microsoft and the 
technology industry (not to mention the rest of the economy, which 
is greatly influenced by technological innovations) need to move 
forward, and in order to move forward this issue needs to be put in 
the past. Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jeanne A. Miller
    4315 Highline Drive SE
    Olympia, WA 98501



MTC-00026806

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:31pm
Subject: Current Microsoft settlement
    Sirs:
    I believe the current settlement in the Microsoft case is a 
reasonable compromise and fair to all parties.
    Please do NOT litigate this matter any further!
    Janet Trewhitt



MTC-00026807

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice;
    I am very much AGAINST the DOJ's proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case.
    It will essentially give Microsoft a green light to extend its 
monopoly into new areas, i.e., digital media.
    Please come up with a more just solution!
    Sincerely,
    Linda Lawson
    US citizen and taxpayer
    [email protected]



MTC-00026808

From: Virginia Metze
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge that you stop the persecution of Microsoft and end any 
further punishment of this company which has succeeded through its 
own merits and not because of tough business practices.
    When I try to do business with any other company, I am again 
amazed how well Microsoft does in its support to customers, and how 
badly other companies are doing.
    I believe that Microsoft is a monopoly not because it has been 
``evil'' but because it has done well and has won the 
support of its customers. I will not buy another operating system, 
and I have resented the efforts which have tried to keep me from 
enjoying the operating system of my choice.
    I would also like to point out that if Microsoft attempts to 
lower prices, there are actually complaints that it is taking 
advantage of its monopoly position to drive others out of business! 
Yet, its very modest prices cause others to complain that they are 
overcharging consumers. This is so very ludicrous, I can't believe 
it. I for one felt that the 1995 consent decree was wrong; the 
justice department should not have pursued it against Microsoft. 
Everyone I knew got Netscape free at the time and it was their 
intention to only charge for server software. I could probably dig 
up email from Marc Andreessen to that effect even still. Yet because 
Microsoft, which paid for the license for Mosaic, tried to put the 
browser in the operating system, we all had to pay for Microsoft 
Plus!
    I believe that it was an erroneous finding that Microsoft was an 
``illegal monopoly.'' I am shocked that the court found 
against Microsoft on this basis. Furthermore as I understand it, 
Judge Penrose Jackson found it was an illegal monopoly as a matter 
of ``fact'' rather than of ``law'', which I 
would have thought such a finding would be. This of course would be 
because it is traditionally the case that an appeals court will not 
overturn findings of fact. In this case they should have done so.
    I am also gravely concerned about the ``open source'' 
movement. I have seen good products driven out of the market by 
inferior ``free'' products which are difficult to use and 
maintain. Yet because they are free they take just enough of the 
market that people will not buy the better product. I think that it 
is wrong to encourage ``open source.'' The punishment of 
Microsoft and any efforts to increase their cost of doing business 
by endless lawsuits and other harassment will give impetus to the 
free source movement.
    I have worked with computers since 1961, and I can assure you 
that open source will not work.
    I am very concerned to see huge markets abandoning Microsoft 
products and going to the ``free'' operating system Linux, 
which came out of the Scandinavian countries and was supported by 
the Free Software Foundation, which is a TAX-EXEMPT CHARITABLE 
institution. I also urge that you end the tax-exempt status of the 
Free Software Foundation. There is no reason that I should be 
supporting them by paying more taxes in order that they do something 
that helps to destroy the American economy. I even heard that the 
FSF got donations from Russian communists, but I do not know if this 
is true.
    More and more servers in countries such as China, Korea and 
other places are going to using Linux because it can be freely 
copied. I do not want my tax dollars used to put more Americans out 
of work and put more pressure on the American economy.
    Many segments of the American technology economy will not 
improve until the suit against Microsoft is ended. I am particularly 
ticked off at the states who pretend to be representing their people 
but are probably only representing a few companies in their state. I 
believe it is unconscionable that these states are being allowed to 
continue to spend millions of tax paper money in an effort to 
destroy the best software engineering company that we have.
    I understand that Microsoft has agreed to go along with the 
settlement. I feel that the settlement is too tough and actually 
Microsoft should not even have agreed to go along. I am sure it did 
so just to end uncertainty in the financial markets and the consumer 
marketplace. That was very noble of them.
    I speak, though they do not know it, for the millions of 
Microsoft customers around the country who do not even know that 
their favorite company is ``in trouble'' or they would be 
supporting them. So, please give this letter a little more weight 
than you otherwise might, because they have very few people speaking 
for them; in some cases, not even their own state's attorney 
general.
    Thank you for your patience, in the event that you have made it 
to the end.
    Virginia Metze
    101 Windy Willows Drive
    Oakwood, IL 61858



MTC-00026809

From: Carol Sands
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I have been following news reports about the Justice 
Department's efforts to stop Microsoft from destroying every 
software company that dares to compete with it. I have just found 
out that you have been appointed to make the final decision 
regarding the Proposed Final Judgement worked out between Microsoft 
and the Justice Department. I urge you to rule against it. I work 
for a non-profit organzation which constantly struggles to meet its 
sparse budget. If Microsoft becomes the monopoly it wants to become 
so desperately, consumers, both individual and corporate, will have 
no protection against price gouging and the superior products that 
naturally arise out of free market competition. What Microsoft is 
trying to accomplish is not only legally wrong, it is morally wrong. 
I again ask you to rule against the PFJ and establish justice for 
ALL, not justice for the rich and powerful.
    Thank you very much.
    Carolyn Sands
    235 Adams St., Apt 15I
    Brooklyn, New York 11201
    LAN Administrator, Here's Life Inner City



MTC-00026810

From: Jeff Hecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    With regard to the revised proposed final judgement (PFJ) in the 
U.S. v. Microsoft case, I would like to submit these comments for 
consideration in further proceedings.
    I am opposed to the agreement for several reasons. Specific 
examples follow, but generally, the agreement allows Microsoft to

[[Page 27874]]

ignore or evade or delay any provision therin by proclamation. I 
remind the court, that Microsoft lost this case; that decision was 
upheld by the Court of Appeals; and the Supreme Court of the United 
States saw no reason to further review the case.
    I am disappointed that structural remedies are no longer 
included in the PFJ. If we learn one thing from history, it would be 
that Microsoft is undeterred by the law, by the courts, and by any 
proposed penalty. In previous cases, Microsoft has been found guilty 
of similar monopolistic practices (See DR-DOS, Stacker). Microsoft 
may have lost these specific legal battles, but only after they had 
already won the war. Both competitors were illegally driven out of 
business before any court could offer relief.
    This practice continues today. In other monopoly cases, 
monopolists are fined for ignoring regulations, the law, and 
judicial orders. In these cases, the fines are less burdensome than 
to comply. Ignoring the law, ignoring the courts, is simply an entry 
on the monopolist's balance sheet. It is simply part of the cost of 
doing business. An additional cost for the monopolist's customers, 
the public, to bear.
    The effect is that if a monopolist becomes large enough, 
resourceful enough, then it can effectively ignore the court. This 
seems likely to happen in this case. Even if the provisions of the 
PFJ were effective-- which, in my opinion, they are 
not--Microsoft could simply ignore them, prolong the inevitable 
legal formalities, and then simply pay whatever fines are imposed by 
the court. The behavior intended by the PFJ will have long since 
evaporated, if it ever existed at all.
    With respect to the PFJ, there are several imperfections which 
should be addressed before any agreement is considered.
    First, throughout the document, many definitions, examples, and 
conditions are specifically enumerated. This renders them 
ineffective. Microsoft, by proclamation, can ignore any such 
definition or condition by simply changing the name of the affected 
entity. If an ``API'' (Application Programming Interface) 
is renamed as an ``APS'' (Application Programming 
Specification), then a majority of the PFJ will be rendered useless 
with one stroke of Microsoft's pen.
    ``API'' is used here simply as an example. Other 
enumerations, other acronyms, and other phrases are equally 
vulnerable to redefinition or obsolescence by Microsoft.
    Too many of the provisions in the PFJ are conditioned upon 
agreement by Microsoft. Why? I remind the court that Microsoft lost 
this case. Their business practices were found to be illegal. I see 
no reason that the guilty party should hold a trump card when 
behavioral remedies are imposed. Correcting Microsoft's behavior is 
the goal of this PFJ. The most serious flaw in the PFJ is Section 
III.J. Section III.J nullifies the entire PFJ by allowing Microsoft 
to use it as an excuse to reject or refuse any other element by 
proclaiming a ``security compromise.'' Microsoft has a 
long and clear record with respect to security, viruses, trojans, 
and all manner of compromising software. As nearly every Microsoft 
product has a woeful security reputation, Microsoft can proclaim 
that every feature of every product has security implications, and 
reject every PFJ behavior mandate.
    Not to mention the enumerated list of exception which Section 
III.J provides. For example, this e-mail message, if it had been 
sent using MSN (the Microsoft Network) would have become copyrighted 
by MSN! A Microsoft product would be allowed, by Section III.J, to 
do whatever it wanted with that copyrighted material, including 
witholding its delivery to the court. And no one would ever know.
    That's a rather far fetched example, but it illustrates the 
latitude granted by Section III.J. A future court would never even 
hear a case against Microsoft because a pre-trial hearing would 
invoke Section III.J of the agreement and the case would be 
summarily dismissed.
    Again, I remind the court that Microsoft lost this case in 
court; the decision was upheld upon appeal, and the Supreme Court of 
the United States found no reason to hear the case. I believe that 
history shows that Microsoft evades, obfuscates, or simply ignores 
the law, the courts, and orders from the bench. I believe that this 
PFJ lacks any incentive for Microsoft to adhere to it, and indeed, 
offers a mechanism for total ignorance.
    I suggest that the court reject the proposed final judgement in 
its current form, and that a more robust remedy be found. One that 
will be less likely to be manipulated and/or ignored by losing 
defendant Microsoft.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Jeff Hecker
    2121 Shorefield Rd.
    Wheaton, MD 20902



MTC-00026811

From: Paul Harold Barsic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I will soon finish a Master's degree in engineering, and I am 
concerned that the existence of an ever expanding monopoly will make 
it difficult for me to support my family. I do not believe that the 
proposed settlement will curb the Microsoft monopoly. I am pleading 
with you to reject the proposed settlement. It was an agreement that 
was reached quickly in consideration of our economy, but this 
settlement is a severe threat to that very economy.
    I have a long list of complaints. I will summarize a few of them 
here. My first complaint is the term of agreement is far too short. 
Since 1995, there have been four major releases of Microsoft 
operating systems: Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP. 
The length of time suggested in the agreement would be only one or 
two more product release cycles. This is much too short to create a 
sustained effect on our economy. The provision should be one not of 
time, but of desktop market share. When it is demonstrated that 
Microsoft is no longer an illegal monopoly, the restrictions should 
be lifted.
    My second complaint involves the technical committee. It is 
stated (section IV, subsection B, item 7) that, ``Microsoft 
shall provide the TC with a permanent office, telephone, and other 
office support facilities at Microsoft's corporate campus in 
Redmond, Washington.'' Furthermore, (section IV, subsection B, 
item 6a) this committee will serve, ``at the cost and expense 
of Microsoft.'' This makes them indistinguishable from 
Microsoft employees. It puts Microsoft in a position to place 
pressure on these three people to settle compliance issues in favor 
of Microsoft.
    My third complaint involves section III, subsection J, item 2. 
The freedoms given to Microsoft in the name of anti-piracy are 
absurd. Every API could be manipulated to create a security exploit. 
The anti-piracy stipulation will allow Microsoft to justify any 
anti-competitive agreement as necessary to prevent piracy. This 
supports a model known popularly as ``security through 
obscurity.'' This model is not valid. The most secure servers 
on the web are built upon code that is freely available to the 
public (Apache, NetBSD, OpenBSD, GNU/Linux). The easiest servers to 
exploit are built upon proprietary code (Microsoft IIS, Microsoft 
Exchange, Microsoft Windows 2000, Microsoft Windows XP). The number 
of exploits for web servers running IIS on top of Windows 2000 is 
astonishingly high (more than 70 new ones discovered in 2001), while 
the number of exploits for Apache web servers is low (less than 10). 
It is not a question of market share;
    Apache servers power approximately 60% of all websites. I 
realize that we are talking about desktop systems, not servers, but 
the key point here is that security through obscurity is not 
effective. The security clause is entirely unnecessary, and it 
creates a hole big enough to fit all of Microsoft's operations. In 
the words of Assistant Attorney General Charles A. James, it's 
``one of those ``duh'' issues.''
    Finally, I would like to see the Microsoft APIs and document 
formats (especially Microsoft Office) made public. This would level 
the playing field for any company that wants to create programs to 
interoperate with Windows. It will facilitate the introduction of 
new software manufacturers. It will introduce competition. It will 
create jobs.
    Please, protect our country from an unlawful concentration of 
power in the hands of a small group of men in Washington.
    Sincerely,
    Paul H. Barsic
    3000 S Chautauqua #145
    Norman OK, 73072



MTC-00026812

From: Mark Hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Say what you will about its monopolistic behavior, Microsoft at 
least never lied to its investors and employees about its business 
prospects. In fact, Microsoft is notorious among stock analysts for 
its conservative business projections. In this day of hot-air stock 
valuations, hype-filled IPOs, and blue-sky projections, Microsoft's 
scrupulous honesty in its communications with employees and the 
investment community is commendable. It's useful to compare that to

[[Page 27875]]

the shenanigans of a formerly high-flying business that's currently 
splattered across the headlines. Enron apparently did nothing BUT 
lie to investors, employees, and the government. And on a more 
personal note, Bill Gates didn't cash in his chips and flee to the 
suburbs like so many Enron execs. Instead, he's taken a huge chunk 
of his money and put it to good use for society. See the story 
below, for example.
    http://www.msnbc.com/news/694130.asp
    I'll take Bill Gates's morality any day.



MTC-00026813

From: Gordon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    May it please the Court,
    I find nothing in the Proposed Settlement that could be 
considered punitive of Microsoft. This is unconscionable. 
Microsoft's illegally obtained and maintained monopoly of the 
business desktop has cost American businesses (and also government) 
billions of Dollars in lost productivity and time wasted by their 
employees wrestling with Microsoft products when more usable and 
reliable alternatives exist.
    Being forced to use Microsoft tools in place of those I would 
use by choice has reduced my personal productivity by an average of 
at least two hours per week, or five percent. The percentage would 
be larger for someone less knowledgeable about computers.
    Microsoft should be fined an amount equivalent to five percent 
of the salaries of all the office workers that have been given 
Windows and Office by their employers, times six years since the 
first settlement, times three.
    Gordon MacGinitie
    5435 Claybourne St. Apt 704
    Pittsburgh, PA 15232



MTC-00026814

From: Rima Karam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am a student at Boston University, and am writing to you in 
regards to the Microsoft settlement between the Justice Department 
and Microsoft.
    I am concerned that that settlement does not prevent Microsoft 
from continuing to be a monopoly.
    Monopolies hurt our society and don't allow the people to use 
the best possible product they can.
    It also discourages possible start-ups to come out with a new 
product against those Microsoft offers.
    I'm just writing to ask you to reconsider and turn over the 
settlement in order to prevent Microsoft to continue with its 
monopoly. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Rima Karam
    Boston University, 2003
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026815

From: Gene Risoldi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Some quick points about this issue:
    1. Microsoft's Windows OS is the only US made product I have 
seen in every country in my travels throughout Europe, S. America 
and Asia. As a business man, I find it incredible that the only 
worldwide challenger that could hurt this company in the long run is 
our own government.
    2. I have been involved in companies who have been charged with 
illegal activities with regard to Sherman's anti-trust laws. I 
believe that if someone has done something illegally, they should be 
charged, prosecuted by our laws and pay the claim. I also believe 
that that same law suggests that we as consumers must have been 
financially damaged in some way for the law to be invoked. I build 
computers and have owned Apple products, worked with WARP and used 
Netscape as my browser. When Microsoft added thier browser to their 
OS, I couldn't have been happier, and it didn't cost me a cent. In 
fact, it saved me $49.99 in upgrades everytime Netscape needed some 
new revenue. Bottom line, Microsoft, because of their mass, their 
rseearch and their marketing prowess kicked over their competition 
in favor of the ultimate consumer. I call that smart business and 
instead of congratulating them, our government, whose members have 
proven they can't run a damn thing effeciently or well, claims they 
know how to fix it. How, by breaking the company into little pieces. 
These are the same people whose number one responsibility is to 
provide for the common defense...last time I looked, 3,000 people 
died and the damages were in the $90 billion dollar range? And they 
want to tell anyone how to operate? I find it difficult to not 
vomit.
    3. Now we have the states suing Microsoft. How in merciful 
heaven were they damaged? Oh, I know their constituents were 
damaged. Well, what about the local county and city governments? 
Don't they have ``constituents'' and why aren't they 
involved?
    4. Let's talk about the real damage this government has caused 
those of us who not only are happy with Microsofts activities but 
bought their stock when we saw that we finally had a dominating 
worldwide company in the US who could kick some foreign butt. I have 
just a 1,000 shares, which were once at $120 and after the 
governent's action, now hovering around $65. Do you in government 
know how many browsers I can buy for the $55,000 loss your actions 
cost me personally?
    5. Finally, if I were Bill Gates, I say piss on the American 
justice system and everything it stands for and move my company, the 
whole kit and caboodle to let's see, how about China? I think they 
would welcome them. And take how many?, 80,000 directly employed 
jobs with them plus another what ?, 150,000 supplier jobs. If they 
made that announcement, I'd buy more stock!
    6. However, don't you misunderstand me. I love America, and I 
know that capitalism and the free enterprise system is unequaled 
when it comes to producing wealth and creating jobs. I retired at 
55, not because I won Dick Gepharts life's lottery, which really 
upsets the hell out of me everytime I think about his comment, but 
because I worked my rearend off; spent 65% of my life away from my 
wife, our kids and our families, so we could take full advantage of 
the opportunities we were presented within our system. And I have 
traveled and worked within other countries enough to know how 
fortunate we all are in America.
    7. Finally, I will turn 60 next week and I wish you to know that 
those of us who are a little older and a little wiser understand 
that there are those who create wealth and those who wish to take it 
away and give it to themselves or to those who will give them the 
power to get it and pass it around. But there is one constant that I 
have learned and I hope my fellow countrymen pick up on someday 
soon. Simply, There is only so much money in the system. There are 
those among us who for whatever reason, will do what it takes to 
amass as much a share as we can and for most of us, to do so in 
legal and moral ways. The idea that governement is going to save us 
money or make us money is smoke and mirrors because it begins and 
ends as OUR money. If there is a cost, we will pay for it. I think 
about the tobacco settlement and when I think about how much of it 
went to ``government beaurocrats'' to pay the health 
expenses or to educate kids not to smoke, and I read about what 
programs it really funded, I can only hope that the rest of the 
citizens of this country wake up and comprehend how corrupt we have 
allowed our system to become.
    8. And finally, how can it be that when we have a company who 
truly was responsible for the universal application and use of 
computers and the prolific results of that use, (which history will 
soon realize was equal to if not more remarkable than the 
``industrial age'') that we want to tear them apart 
because they are the best at what they do.
    I leave you with what I started this memo about. In our 
governing system, if someone can be proven to have done something 
illegally, throw the book at them. But as a governing body, stay the 
hell out of decisions about running businesses. America can only 
handle so much incompetence before we really get into trouble.
    Given sincerely as an opinion, but with plenty enough historical 
fact to make my case.
    Gene Risoldi
    10139 Big Canoe
    Big Canoe, GA 30143



MTC-00026816

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The case against Microsoft needs to come to a close. We should 
not penalize a company for proving excellent products and creating 
hundreds of thousands of jobs for developers like myself who use 
Micrsosft products to develop applications. This is how I earn my 
living.



MTC-00026817

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 27876]]

Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of 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 caverly
    11 linda rd.
    andover, MA 01810



MTC-00026818

From: The Husons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    My husband and I urge the acceptance of the agreement reached 
between Microsoft and the DOJ and some of the states.
    We are tired of companies like Sun Microsystems resorting to 
lawsuits to gain market share instead of good old R and D and 
marketing efforts on their part.
    We also feel that the agreement is fair to all parties involved.
    We need to stop wasting resources on lawsuits and let the 
companies ge back to work and get our economy going.
    We feel that the lawsuit was without merit and should be settled 
as soon as possible.
    Very Truly Yours,
    Margaret and John Huson
    801 N.E. Old Belfair Hwy
    Belfair, Wa. 98528



MTC-00026819

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It's in the interest of all concerned parties that this 
settlement be put to rest finalizing this suit.
    Robert Kline
    [email protected]



MTC-00026820

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is time to end all of the legal bantering and go 
with the agreed upon settlement. If it is continued further it is 
only costing the average citizen through our tax money. Use the 
taxes for more important things.
    Warren Williams
    9408 E.... 25th Street
    Indianapolis, Indiana 46229
    317-897-0286
    [email protected]



MTC-00026821

From: Sandra G. Owen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:48pm
Subject: AOL
    It is about time that the settlement previous to AOL is 
finalized.
    AOL is seeking to line its own pockets by adverse action; as 
stated by one of the Attorneys General who oppose 
settlement--paraphrased ``we will sue and sue because we 
do not have to pay fees, Microsoft has to do that.'' AOL itself 
is wanting something for nothing; riding shirttails to get business 
without innovation of its own.
    I can only hope that the Tunney Review stops all attempts, 
underhanded ones at that, as the public has had enough of this 
bickering and most importantly jealously by those not capable of 
doing there own research and development.
    Sandy Owen



MTC-00026822

From: Ron Hitchens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    I wish to comment on the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
Antitrust Settlement.
    I have been a computer professional for over 25 years and in 
that time have observed the behavior of many computer companies. It 
is well known in the computer industry that Microsoft doesn't play 
fair. They routinely thwart and/or crush competition in any way they 
can. Microsoft is predatory, plain and simple.
    Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive practices. This 
is good, because it proves out what has been widely known by the 
entire industry for many years. But the proposed settlement is 
woefully inadequate.
    Microsoft, though clearly found guilty of anti-competitive 
behavior, is not being punished for that behavior. They are in fact 
benefiting by the so-called punishment--contributing Microsoft 
software to schools is hardly a punishment. It is basically low-cost 
advertising for Microsoft and further helps to squeeze out 
alternatives. A better punishment would be for Microsoft to donate 
the cash equivalent of the retail cost of the software, to be spent 
as the schools please, but that still would not address the real 
problem.
    It's painfully clear the proposed settlement is politically 
influenced and greased by that best of political lubricants: money. 
Microsoft has mountains of cash and knows how to wield it as an 
effective weapon. They are also masters of the FUD attack.
    I urge you, the Department of Justice, to not be blinded by 
Microsoft's propaganda campaign or to be influenced by the political 
pressures I'm sure are exerted upon you. In this day and age, it 
seems ethics are a quaint anachronism. Lawyers it seems can twist 
anything with enough money and PR. Microsoft has the best attorneys 
money can buy, still were found guilty. Please don't ignore that 
screaming fact.
    You have a chance to do the right thing here, don't blow it. 
--
    Ron Hitchens



MTC-00026823

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    It is time to bring the Microsoft lawsuit to a halt and stop 
trying to make a bunch of greedy lawyers rich in the process. The 
seniors of this country need all the breaks we can get because to 
date, they are few and far between. We, on social security, cannot 
even afford our life saving drugs, and the internet is completely 
out of the question. Most of the Government programs only benefit 
Minorities and bums except Medicare. Let us get on with this 
business and stop listening to special interest groups interested in 
lining their own pockets at the expense of seniors.
    Joe S. Price
    Crosby, Texas



MTC-00026824

From: Urbie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft settlement because it 
directly increases Microsoft's share of the educational market.
    Sincerely,
    Urbano Delgado
    [email protected]
    323-365-1350



MTC-00026825

From: vanharvey2 HARVEY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Over the last eight years, I have, by accident, become a 
software developer. I came into PC's as a sales manager during the 
time before Microsoft dominated the business software suite's. I 
began working with Lotus & Borland's products, and then found 
Microsoft's. I checked them all out, and found that Microsoft's had 
more of the features and support that I wanted & needed. They 
enabled me to help my salespeople to make more effective and 
productive us of their time, in more ways, than any other product 
available. I became so hooked on being able to unlock people's 
productivity by fiddling with software code, that I became an 
Instructor and then fulltime developer.
    Through the years, I've found that Microsoft's products 
consistently give me more of what I need, than any other product out 
there, and as a result, my professional standing, my income, and my 
families security, has increased dramatically as well.
    That professional and financial security was rocked when the DOJ 
won it's initial case against Microsoft. My entire industry was 
affected immediately, and as we in the software industry know, the 
DotCom bust followed as a direct result.
    I resent that my government precipitated this calamity, from an 
effort to prop up those software companies that I and most of those 
I work with, try our best not to have to use;

[[Page 27877]]

because their products are inferior, and their policies are 
restrictive and ``thuggish'' in dealing with developers.
    We, the software Developers and users, didn't ask Government to 
step in and ``protect us'' by crippling Microsoft--a 
bunch of 2nd rate companies did, and it was for their betterment, 
not ours. We use Microsoft because we have decided that their 
products make our lives and professions, more successful.
    Please get out of their way.
    If Microsoft stumbles and begins to crank out inferior products, 
you can be sure that we'll jump ship quickly, (and one of us will 
create the software that the rest jump to), and we won't need the 
Government to tell us there's a problem. We don't need the 
Government forcing us to use inferior products made by inferior 
companies with inferior bully management, when Microsoft has what we 
want in the way we need it--now.
    Microsoft has a right to design it's software, the way they 
choose, and we have a right to choose it, if we choose. As an 
American company, Microsoft has a Right to its property, and it is 
the government's job is to protect that right, not to take it away.
    Please let Microsoft alone, and settle this case quickly.
    Sincerely,
    Van Harvey
    4 Rustic Meadow Ct.
    St. Peters, MO 63376
    636-939-3411
    [email protected]



MTC-00026826

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to urge you and the Department of Justice to accept 
the Microsoft antitrust settlement. It's time to end this case, 
which has been dragged out for over three years.
    The suit has hurt not only Microsoft and its stockholders but 
also the technology industry and the economy as a whole. Any 
settlelment agreement that ends this situation should be seriously 
considered, and this settlelment, with tough restrictions on 
Microsoft, should be enacted. It can't reasonably be claimd that 
Microsoft is getting off easily. The settlement forces them to give 
up propietary information about and certain controls on their 
operating system so that others can more easily make and promote 
products that directly compete with Microsoft products. If Microsoft 
breaks this agreement they can be punished for contempt of court.
    The first step in getting the technology industry back to 
business is settling the antitrust suit with Microsoft. A 
settlelment has been drafted and I would like to see it accepted. 
Only once the antitrust suit is in the past can the technology 
industry focusd on the future.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Wright
    Charles Wright
    6704 Klein Street NW
    Olympia WA 98502



MTC-00026827

From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:52pm
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,
    Dustin Cross
    IN 47303



MTC-00026828

From: Erv (038) Nancy Otte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:57pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Close this case. This case is simply another mistake by the 
William Jefferson Clinton term. Let Microsoft continue to help the 
world develop.
    Microsoft has done more to help improve the world than almost 
all other businesses in the world. Let the free enterprise system 
continue. More Government will only hold back growth and 
development.
    Sincerely,
    Ervin G. Otte
    Bedford, Indiana USA



MTC-00026829

From: Alex Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honors,
    I have suffered greatly from the actions of microsoft over the 
past years. My work with video has been sabotaged by Microsoft's 
efforts to break QuickTime and make it look like Apple's fault. At 
times it has hurt my credibility and many many times has hurt my 
productivity. My choice of everything in the computer world has 
diminished as Microsoft has risen. I lost quality alternative word 
processors, web browsers, and alternate operating systems. 
Furthermore, I am outraged that Microsoft has never taken the legal 
system seriously. From all it's falsified demonstrations in the 
early phases of the trial through it's insulting proposed remedy, 
it's clear that Microsoft does not respect our court.
    The proposed remedy is a joke, and the implementation is an 
insult. The idea that Microsoft would be able to self-police is not 
valid. And installing court officers inside of Microsoft who wold be 
subject to the corporate culture and exposed only to what Microsoft 
lets them see would certainly do nothing than placate the court, but 
not offer any real solutions to consumer's problems.
    As Microsoft prepares to make another move into homes with the 
X-box and Ultimate TV, and before they can hurt consumers any more, 
I recommend you punish Microsoft in a way that will compensate it's 
customers, who have certainly suffered as a result of the unfair 
practices of a company with more money than ethics.
    Al Johnson
    Cincinnati, Ohio



MTC-00026830

From: jay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For shame,
    Anti-trust was put into place to protect Joe public.... As I see 
it, it has not been enforced in 20 years. How about going after 
Microsoft and every other company pre-selling product with no 
product ready to ship or a responsible shipment date. Or any company 
that sells beta ware waiting for the public to test it and than 
usually charges for the upgrade. If they sold a car with non-
functioning brakes you would be all over them due to the deaths 
involved.
    How bout doing the right thing for a change and find for the 
public and not with corporate America who can not be held 
responsible for anything.... or so it seems
    Jay Farber
    JFMConsulting
    Los Angeles --



MTC-00026831

From: Ted Beel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 27, 2002
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to express my support for the settlement of the 
antitrust case against Microsoft. As a former Microsoft employee, I 
think that the employees and executives of Microsoft are looking 
forward to the opportunity to move past the legal problems. I have 
no doubt that Microsoft employees will work fairly and honestly, 
according to the terms of the settlement.
    During the past month, many of Microsoft's competitors have 
reported financial results and made predictions regarding future 
financial results. I am guardedly optimistic that financial 
conditions will improve for many high-tech companies as customers 
see the benefits of open access to Microsoft source code. Reduced 
support costs may well provide an impetus to growth necessary to 
lift the industry from its current economic slump.
    Thank you for considering my opinions in this matter.

[[Page 27878]]

    Regards,
    Ted Beel
    1627 164th Place SE
    Mill Creek, WA 98012



MTC-00026832

From: Jerome Borden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    Please get this case settled as quickly as possible. In case you 
haven't noticed, the current economic downturn started about the 
time that court decision against Microsoft was handed down. There is 
nothing ``the Market'' abhors more than uncertainty. Next 
on that list is the prospect of hard work being punished. This is 
why the market goes down when the ``economic news'' is 
good. It is afraid of what the Federal Reserve will do. The same is 
true of the Tax Code and Ecology Regulations causing otherwise 
willing people to not engage in certain activities. The threat of 
Legal Plundering is in this list of economic stiflers. Ask any 
smoker about that. Many businesses go out of their way and threaten 
legal action to prevent their products from having any contact with 
aviation because of Fear of Lawyers. A similar cloud fell over the 
high tech industry starting in mid-2000 and that had a lot to do 
with Microsoft litigation.
    Yours Truly,
    Jerome C. Borden (a current Netscape user)
    1571 E. Beechwood Drive
    Layton, UT 84040-2226
    801-586-3616 (days, else 801-593-0078)



MTC-00026833

From: Sameer Chopra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Setttlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Recently, Microsoft was accused by AOL/Time Warner on behalf of 
Netscape to have violated antitrust laws. They say that since 
Microsoft is bundling Internet Explorer with the Windows operating 
system, they are monopolizing the business. I agree with this 
statement because by putting their web browser on the computer, most 
users will use it because it comes installed on the computer. This 
has the potential to drive Netscape out of business because only 
people who specifically want Netscape will use it. Those who do not 
care will use Internet Explorer because it comes installed on the 
computer.
    This event is similar to the time around the industrial 
revolution, when larger companies would drive smaller companies out 
of business, then buy them for almost nothing. Similarly, Microsoft 
is trying to destroy Netscape, but not to buy it out. Instead, it 
wants to disable AOL/Time Warner's hold in the web browser business. 
In conclusion, Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with 
Windows is a clear attempt at a monopoly and must be stopped.



MTC-00026834

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I respectfully suggest that the Proposed Final Judgement be 
rejected, based on the following facts:
    A. There is no provision preventing Microsoft from restricting 
the use of non- Microsoft middleware as a means by which competing 
operating systems might make use of software designed for Windows. 
Such an option would greatly enhance the competitive environment, 
serve the public interest, and lower the barrier of entry for new 
operating systems. Microsoft has a history of preventing competing 
products from working with it's operatng systems, as was the case 
with Corel's ``DR.DOS'' product and Windows 3.1. It is 
certain that they will resume this anti- competitive practice, 
unless prevented.
    B. The provision, in Section III/I, Subsection 5, that a 
licensee be required to license it's products back to Microsoft, is 
to Microsoft's advantage. The monopoliust already has an advantage, 
acquired thought illegal means. any judgement needs to deny 
Microsoft the ability to preserve and extend it's illegal monopoly.
    C. Section III/J, Subsection 2(c), requires that a licensee meet 
standards `` . . . established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business''. 
This provision is so broad that it effectively makes the final 
judgement invalid. This provision limits the licensee to 
``businesses'' but, by Microsoft's own admission, some of 
it's chief competitors are non-business entities like Apache, Samba, 
and Linux.
    D. Nowhere in the PFJ is Microsoft required to disclose 
information about its file formats ( Microsoft Word, Excel, WMP, and 
so on). It is clear that Microsoft will continue largely unpunished 
should the Proposed Final Judgement be accepted. Microsoft has been 
found guilty of maintaining an illegal monopoly. A resolution is 
needed that is far more effective at delivering a suitable remedy.
    Thomas Dow
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026835

From: Mark Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for presenting me with the opportunity to share my 
views on the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) on the Microsoft case.
    I firmly believe that the PFJ will fail to curb Microsofts 
illegal, anticompetitive behaviors (or as John Ashcroft simply 
called it, Microsoft's unlawful conduct) due to its failure to 
either address at all, or in sufficient detail, three main 
behaviors. 1) Most Windows APIs are shipped by Microsoft as add-on 
SDKs with associated redistributable components under a very 
restrictive End User License Agreements (EULA) barring use with Open 
Source or Free Software applications. 2) Microsoft discriminates 
against independent software vendors who want to develop Windows-
compatible, competing operating systems. 3) The PFJ narrowly defines 
Windows Operating System Product in definition U to mean only 
Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, 
and their successors ignoring Windows Pocket PC, X-Box, Tablet PC 
and other OSs which Microsoft is developing.
    As I mentioned, most Windows APIs are currently shipped by 
Microsoft as add-on SDKs with other associated redistributable 
components. Applications which wish to use the Windows APIs are 
forced to also use the add-on SDK components even though those same 
add-ons. The catch, of course, is that the SDK components almost 
always have very restrictive EULAs prohibiting their use with Open 
Source or Free Software applications. This directly harms companies 
wishing to develop software as they are forced to either hope that 
the people using their product already have up-to-date APIs (which 
is always possible, but is a poor practice for a company to rely on 
as their product will quickly become thought of as unstable or 
unreliable since there is bound to be a group of users who suffer 
problems due to API problems) or they must shun Open Source and Free 
Software licenses for their product. Two applications which are 
harmed by this restrictive EULA include the competing middleware 
product Netscape 6 (competing against Internet Explorer 6) and the 
competing office suite StarOffice (a competitor with Microsoft 
Office XP). The restrictive EULAs thus can cause support problems 
for, and discourage the use of, competing middleware and office 
suites. Additionally, since Open Source or Free Software 
applications tend to also run on non-Microsoft operating systems, 
any resulting loss of market share by Open Source or Free Software 
applications indirectly harms competing operating systems.
    The PFJ will fail to curb Microsofts discrimination against 
independent software vendors who want to develop Windows-compatible, 
competing operating systems. Today, the Microsoft Platform SDK 
coupled with Microsoft Visual C++, is the primary toolkit used by 
ISVs to create Windows-compatible applications. However, the EULA 
for the Microsoft Platform SDK reads in part:
    Distribution Terms. You may reproduce and distribute 
. . . the Redistributable Components . . . 
provided that (a) you distribute the Redistributable Components only 
in conjunction with and as a part of your Application solely for use 
with a Microsoft Operating System Product . . .
    This makes it illegal to run programs built with Visual C++ on 
Windows-compatible competing operating systems. The PFJ failure to 
address these exclusionary behaviors will contribute to the 
Applications Barrier to Entry faced by competing operating systems.
    Perhaps the biggest flaw of the PFJ is that it uses an overly 
narrow definition of Windows Operating System Product in definition 
dd. Restricting the definition of Windows Operating System Product 
to only Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP 
Professional, and their successors ignores many major avenues of 
growth that Microsoft itself sees in the future of computing. 
Microsoft's monopoly is on Intel-compatible operating systems not 
just the three current OSs listed in the PFJ and their successors. 
Nearly all applications

[[Page 27879]]

written to the Win32 APIs can run unchanged on Windows 2000, Windows 
XP Tablet PC Edition, and Windows CE, and with a simple 
recompilation, can also be run on Pocket PC. Microsoft even proudly 
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. Bill Gates, in his address at the recent COMDEX 
convention (available at: http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/
speeches/2001/11-11comdex.asp) with Jeff Raikes assisting him 
agreed with the statement that the Tablet PC operating system is 
already able to run all existing Windows programs along with a suite 
of its own applications. And yet it is highly debatable that the 
Tablet PC operating system is a successor to any of the three OSs 
listed in the PFJ. Even clearer is that Windows Pocket PC is not 
covered in the PFJ as it existed before any of the three OSs listed 
again, Windows Pocket PC can run versions of many Windows programs. 
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 (which in its next generation, currently named 
Homestation will attempt to dominate the Personal Video Recorder 
market currently led by TiVO and SonicBlue while becoming the 
central piece of entertainment in homes or as ABC News said, 
Microsoft's big black box is but a cog in a more ambitious machine, 
one designed to tie the software giant to every area of home 
entertainment. The whole story is available at: abcnews.go.com/
sections/scitech/TechTV/techtv--Xbox020123.html) or some other 
Microsoft Operating System that can run Windows applications.
    So what we are left with is a potential shift in Microsofts 
business away from Windows XP and towards new OSs like Windows 
Tablet Edition or X-Box or Pocket PC none of which are clearly 
successors to Windows XP. Instead, they are Windows-compatible 
operating systems the exact same type of product that Microsoft bars 
other companies from making as I addressed in my second point. 
Therefore, the PFJ will allow Microsoft to extend its monopoly as it 
can (and certainly will) develop distinct new Operating Systems 
which are Windows compatible while not addressing Microsofts refusal 
to grant that right to other companies.
    Finally, I need to say that the opinions I expressed here are 
solely my own and are in no way influenced by the fact that one of 
the paralegals at the Department of Justice is cute!
    Sincerely,
    Mark Roberts
    Washington, DC



MTC-00026836

From: BERNARD FLEISCHMAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network 

    To: ```[email protected]''' 

    Subject: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
    Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:01:18 -0500
    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 and carbon copy it to your Member of 
Congress. We believe that it is essential to let our elected 
officials 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.
    Carbon Copy:
    Rep. Robert Wexler
    Fax: 202-225-5974
    For more information, please visit these websites:
    www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/
    www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
    8867 Brittany Lakes Drive
    Boynton Beach, Florida 33437
    January 19, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to show my concern for the Microsoft Antitrust 
settlement. I believe that the Department of Justice and Microsoft 
have come to reasonable terms and that the duration of this case 
should be ended. The settlement enforces a number of restrictions 
and obligations that Microsoft must follow in order rectify this 
antitrust violation, which should promote more competition in the 
software market. Microsoft has even agreed to make available to the 
competition various interfaces that are internal to Windows'' 
operating system products. In addition to that, Microsoft has also 
consented to promote competitor's programs within Windows software.
    Microsoft has agreed to make drastic changes in order to fulfill 
their obligations and I think that this settlement should put an end 
to this lengthy case.
    Sincerely,
    Arline Fleichman
    cc: Representative Robert Wexler



MTC-00026841

From: Timothy o'shea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice
    Timothy o'Shea, International Communications Executive,
    620 Euclid Avenue
    San Francisco, CA 94118
    RE : Final Microsoft Settlement/Judgement
    It seems clear that anything that defines a ``final'' 
settlement for the Microsoft case must focus on this opportunity to 
halt monopolistic practices that further define a more limited 
access to freedom into the future.
    After all the resources and expense of the Federal Government in 
pursuing the formidable position of Microsoft in the market, the 
initial intention must be paramount: protect future domestic 
security, rights and economy. Only with a focus on protecting future 
commerce and individual rights can the government honor its original 
intention to protect the consumer, the public and the still evolving 
opportunities of the Information Age and the economies that will 
emerge within it.
    The following are some of the required points that must be 
included in the spirit and letter of the settlement.
    (1) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run the 70,000 
existing Windows applications without modification on all other 
operating systems.
    (2) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native 
versions of Microsoft Office applications on all other operating 
systems.
    (3) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or 
more of the four Office applications with competing applications, 
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services 
with any Microsoft application.
    (4) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native 
versions of Explorer, Media Player and other Microsoft Internet 
applications on all other operating systems.
    (5) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or 
more Microsoft Internet applications with competing applications, 
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services 
with any Microsoft application.
    (6) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace any 
component or feature in any Microsoft software product with superior 
or special purpose components or features.
    (7) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run any Microsoft 
software on computers that do not have Intel-compatible 
microprocessors.
    (8) A simple, affordable, and reliable way for software 
developers to access all the information they need to create 
products that offer consumers these choices.
    (9) A way to ensure that original equipment manufacturers 
provide consumers with equal access to computers with

[[Page 27880]]

alternative operating systems, productivity applications, and 
Internet applications.
    (10) A ``crown jewel'' provision establishing such 
serious consequences for non-compliance that Microsoft will not 
attempt to evade the necessary disclosure requirements and other 
mandates
    The overall question is to ask is if there could be so much 
smoke around the practices of Microsoft, without the fires of 
monopolistic strategy being at the source of a strong and growing 
fire. Such an informational juggernaut position, if unchecked, could 
unleash a slow burning fire that becomes too much to quell later on.
    I hope you will keep these points above in mind. They are, 
indeed, what is necessary to keep the digital divide from keeping 
out too many from having access to the future in any meaningful way.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy o'Shea



MTC-00026842

From: Anant K Saraswat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Decision
    As a student in the Master of Engineering Program at the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, I would like to comment on 
the Proposed Final Judgement.
    While the spirit of the ruling, which is to prevent anti-
competitive practices by Microsoft, is admirable, the letter of the 
ruling leaves many loopholes that Microsoft will be able to exploit 
that will allow it to continue to stifle competition. Specifically:
    The definition of the term ``API'' used in the ruling 
is extremely narrow--it only refers to the interfaces between 
Microsoft Middleware products and the OS. This would allow Microsoft 
to refuse to disclose many interfaces that developers will need to 
write applications that use Windows. The definition of API used in 
the ruling should be altered to say, ``Application Programming 
Interfaces (APIs)'' means the interfaces, including any 
associated callback interfaces, that Popular Windows Applications 
running or being installed on a Windows Operating System Product use 
to call upon that Windows Operating System Products in order to 
obtain services from that Windows Operating System Product.''
    The term ``Windows Operating System Product'' is also 
too narrowly defined. It does not include any of the Microsoft 
Operating sytems that are targetted towards use on laptop computers 
or PDA's, such as Microsoft Windows CE. These operating systems 
should also be included in the settlement.
    The ruling does not contain language that prevents Microsoft 
from intentionally designing its products to be incompatible with 
other operating systems.
    The ruling allows Microsoft to retalliate against OEMs that ship 
PCs which use an OS other than Windows. Given the current popularity 
of Windows and other Microsoft products, no OEM can afford to risk a 
cutoff of Microsoft products in retalliation for using competing 
products. This is a barrier to competition.
    The ruling requirs Microsoft to license Windows at uniform terms 
and published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but does not put any 
restrictions on its licensing to smaller OEMs. These smaller OEMs 
are the companies most likely to experiment with other operating 
systems. Section III.B. allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances to OEMs. For instance, Microsoft could offer 
discounts on Windows to OEMs based on the number of copies of 
Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems sold by that OEM. In effect, 
this allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-compatible 
operating systems to increase its market share in other areas.



MTC-00026847

From: Dale Lillie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir or Madam,
    I strongly urge the US Department of Justice to settle the 
Microsoft case now and enter the revised proposed Final Judgment. 
The case brought against Microsoft was motivated primarily by 
competitive malice. Settling this case is certainly in the public 
interest.
    Microsoft has been a boon to me by bringing lower PC prices, 
faster and better computing, and better software development tools. 
In addition, this lawsuit has cost investors, literally hundreds of 
billions of dollars.
    I have gladly purchased and used Microsoft products for over 20 
years. Professionally, I have developed many systems based on 
Microsoft software products. During this time I have interacted with 
Microsoft personnel at many levels. At no time did I think that the 
relationship with Microsoft was not fair or beneficial to me as well 
as to other parties involved. To the contrary, I believe that 
Microsoft to a large degree is responsible for the current economic 
good health of the USA, as well as many other countries of the 
world.
    It is time to end this antitrust action begun in 1997.
    Sincerely,
    Dale G Lillie
    Dale G Lillie
    River Forecast Group
     http://
www.RiverForecast.com



MTC-00026849

From: Mary/Harold Shelby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement:
    Please, PLEASE, let's take the proposed settlement in stride and 
get on with life. Most of the lawyers already have enough money, and 
there is really no other reason to have dragged this thing out this 
long.
    A normal business would have long since declared bankruptcy if 
it were operated in the manner in which this case has been handled. 
If there is no reason to punish the public further, then settle this 
case NOW!
    Any punishment or fine or any other punitive action taken 
against a business of nearly any kind is eventually suffered or paid 
for by the public. Look at the fiasco of the Clinton mess: The jerk 
was not, nor will he EVER be worth what he cost the American 
taxpayer, no matter HOW much he and his partner/wife (or whatever) 
steal. Is that enough said about that IT? A MAN would not have done 
what that thirteen-year-old punk (at the REAL age of 50) did!!
    Thanx for lending me your ear so I might let off some steam!
    SINCERELY,
    Harold Shelby



MTC-00026850

From: Thurston C Tooker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To: US Justice Dept.
    Please stop this pending ( damaging ) litigation against 
Microsoft Corporation. Only self-serving competitors really want 
this proposed settlement to drag on. It is, without any doubt, 
against Public Interest.
    T, C, Tooker
    5308 Terrace Oak Circle
    Fair Oaks, Calif. 95628-3634



MTC-00026851

From: Joyce Cheze
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:27pm
Subject: LEAVE WINDOWS ALONE
    Separating Windows would complicate computer use greatly. Also, 
it would increase the chances of incompatibility.
    I teach computers to high school students in Florida. Windows is 
a wonderful for student use. Separating it would create major 
learning blocks.
    Also, we have limited dollars to spend for our budget. 
Compatibility is vital. Separation would create serious budgetary 
concerns for technology in Florida high schools.
    Please show common sense. Leave Windows working as it is.
    Thank you,
    Joyce Cheze
    Computer Teacher



MTC-00026852

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is not in the best 
interest of the United States and represents a complete sellout of 
the American consumer by the Department of Justice. The settlement 
must be rejected. The long, expensive trial proved beyond any doubt, 
as evidenced by the unanimous opinion of the District Appeals Court, 
that Microsoft is an abusive monopolist that doesn't hesitate to use 
any tactic, no matter how ethical or illegal, to crush any person or 
company in its way. The settlement at issue does nothing, repeat 
nothing, to punish Microsoft for its prior and ongoing illegal 
activities and puts no, repeat no, real constraints on future 
illegal and/or abusive activities. The proposed settlement is so 
full of loopholes that it might as well not be in place.
    In fact, the details of this proposed settlement are so 
completely skewed in Microsoft's favor as to allow them to do

[[Page 27881]]

--anything-- they so choose in the future and it will be 
allowed.
    The proposed settlement stinks to high heaven and must be 
rejected as completely inadequate.
    I'm ashamed that the so-called Department of Justice would even 
be associated with a settlement this biased against the citizens 
they're supposedly representing.
    Sincerely,
    A. Allan Dauer
    United States Citizen



MTC-00026853

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    URGENT ACTION ALERT
    Microsoft should not be punished any further and the litigation 
against them should be truncated NOW.
    We believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement be accepted. 
We believe this settlement offers a reasonable compromise that will 
enhance access to the internet and initiate innovative software 
products in the immediate future and have a very positive impact on 
the American economy and this recession.
    Thank you for listening.
    Niketas J. Haldoupis and
    Laura F. Haldoupis



MTC-00026854

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:28pm
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,
    Jake Morphonios
    137 Dovick Dr
    Banner Elk, NC 28604



MTC-00026855

From: Barbara Bryant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having been in the business world for many years and exposed to 
the onset of the cyberage, I have never understood how anyone could 
say that Microsoft has been guilty of violating the anti-trust laws. 
Bill Gates took an EXPENSIVE product and made it available to the 
general public and to small business at a reasonable cost!
    The suit against Microsoft originated with its unsuccessful 
competitors NOT with its consumers! Are we going to now see an era 
where one will be unable to go into competition across the street, 
sell a better product at a less expensive cost and be successful 
without some lawyer taking away that right? Thank God this could not 
happen during Henry Ford's day!
    We Americans have seen many rights taken away from us in the 
past 25 years. It seems the only time we have a ``right'' 
is when it appeases the liberal ideology and I, for one, am sick and 
tired of it. It is NOT the government's place to protect any 
business from another in a so-called ``free country''! 
AND, it is NOT the government's place (or any money-hungry lawyer) 
to see that I am protected from myself!
    Men and women with the intelligence, foresight and GUTS to do 
what Bill Gates did should never have HIS PROPERTY taken away by a 
government-- especially the AMERICAN government. HIS rights 
should be protected. And he should be shown as an example to ALL 
young Americans to encourage them to reach for the same stars rather 
than some rock star or athlete that manages to have 5--7 
children out of wedlock before reaching the age of 25!
    If the government really wanted to do something FOR THE PEOPLE 
of this country, why do we not see any investigations into the 
``non-profit'' organizations that seem to have to account 
to NO ONE! It seems one can set up a ``non-profit'' 
organization, collect millions, show a very small percentage going 
to something or some organization that fits the ``help a 
person'' category, write off HUGE salaries and contributions to 
mistresses as ``Consulting Fees'', extort millions more 
from other businesses and the IRS ``doesn't have the resources 
to investigate''. Forget to include a 1099 from a measly oil 
royalty of $136.00, as I did a couple of years ago (with a total 
income of less than $40,000.00) and the IRS seems to have plenty of 
resources to conduct an audit.
    Something dreadfully evil has crept into the American Government 
ideology and I predict as long as we hard-working, tax-paying 
Americans sit on our duffs without any outcry, our rights are going 
to continue to be whittled away in the name of ``protecting 
us'' and this country will fall into economic, social and moral 
disaster. Unfortunately, we have a very good foundation to that end 
today.
    Yours truly,
    Barbara Bryant
    Levelland, Texas



MTC-00026856

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To The Justice Department :RE--The Proposed Microsoft 
Settlement;
    The following statement, in part, was sent to me by the Seniors 
Coaltion.
    ``The Seniors Coalition strongly believes that the proposed 
settlement offers a reasonable compromise that will enhance the 
ability of seniors and all Americans to access the internet and use 
innovative software products to make their computer experience 
easier and more enjoyable. Unfortunately, a few of Microsoft's 
competitors have continued their aggressive lobbying campaign to 
undermine the settlement negotiated with the federal government and 
nine states. The settlement itself is tough on Microsoft, but is a 
fair outcome for all parties--particularly senior consumers. 
Most important, this settlement will have a very positive impact on 
the American economy and will help pull us from the recession we 
have experienced over the past year. Consumer interests have been 
well served, and the time to end this costly and damaging litigation 
has come.
    Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few 
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one 
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the 
marketplace.''
    I agree with this completely,and think it is time to put an end 
to this.
    Respectfully,
    William S.Palmer



MTC-00026857

From: Frances Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:34pm
Subject: Response to any changes to draft
    I do not wish to make any changes in the letter drafted--I 
wish to stand up for Microsoft--Please be aware this is my 
notice to ask you to accept my letter in favor of Microsoft. 
FranWard41 @hotmail.com



MTC-00026858

From: William Pence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    OK, I have waited almost too late to submit my comments:
    The DOJ and judicial system in place MUST place conditions 
against MS in place with teeth, that will cause a fundamental change 
to MS business practice. As the courts have already found, MS 
routinely uses illegal monopoly power to protect and advance its 
market. This is a competitive stranglehold on the industry that will 
only hurt the consumer long term. From previous judgements in cases 
like this, MS will interpret these rulings to their advantage at 
every opportunity. This means an oversight team NOT SPECIFIED OR 
APPOINTED BY MS is required. Note that they have already tried this 
game. Their people must be removed from the oversight team. This 
oversight team must have authority to REQUIRE MS compliance.
    Please, Please, Please do not allow MS to continue to extend 
their monopoly via illegal tactics. The proposed settlement to 
provide schools with technology is a JOKE.
    1. they do not have a monopoly there, so this will help them 
alter the balance in their favor.
    2. the accounting in use will claim that Windows costs 199.99, 
and office costs 499.95, when they are basically ``free'' 
since MS is just giving copies of existing software.
    3. Allowing MS to specify the settlement is like allowing the 
fox the KEY to the

[[Page 27882]]

henhouse, and providing extra place settings for the fox to invite 
friends.
    Several engineer friends of mine and I have watched this trial 
from the beginning. we all have the collective ``duhhh'' 
when the court findings of illegal monopoly practices were 
published. we have also had the collective ``what a 
waste'' watching the current handling of the case. David Boise 
laid a perfect design to really solve this. Let's no give away the 
ending. Let's make a real difference to STOP MS from continuing 
their illegal practices, and allowing real competition from AOL/
Netscape, Apple, Real Networks, and others. thanks,
    [email protected]



MTC-00026859

From: George Papp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi I'm a college student at The Ohio State University and the 
Microsoft Settlement is not fair to a successful company who has 
done more for the public good than any-other tech company in the 
business.
    Why penalize a company because they are successful. Its not 
Microsoft's fault that consumers do not buy their competitor's junk 
product. Also, if Microsoft is paying my education. I was fortunate 
to have been able to trade shares of Microsoft to pay for my college 
education instead of taking college loans to pay for it. If 
Microsoft tanks I highly feel that I would not be able to sell 
shares and make enough money off the transactions to pay for school. 
Our Country is having tough economic times and penalizing Microsoft 
for its success would further send our country down the economic 
toilet.
    Thank You,
    George M. Papp
    Student



MTC-00026860

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:37pm
Subject: Views on Microsoft and Bill Gates
    If I Were Bill Gates
    Published in USA TODAY 1/24/00
    by Michael J. Hurd Ph.D.
    Poor Bill Gates. He doesn't know how to defend himself.
    If I were Bill Gates, here is what I would say to defend myself:
    I created a company. Millions upon millions of people want to 
buy my company's products. They do so freely and 
willingly--often enthusiastically. I never lied to my 
customers. I never held a gun to their heads. They bought from me of 
their own free will. My products have transformed the world. The 
billions I've made are small potatoes compared to the benefit the 
world has gained from my innovations.
    It is true that I package together some of my products. But I 
created these products. It is my right to package and sell them any 
way I see fit. It is the equal right of individual consumers to shop 
elsewhere if they see fit. Many of them do. It's a competitive 
business, and I have no guarantee of always staying on top. In a 
free market, there are no guarantees.
    Government is supposed to protect its citizens from the 
initiation of force and fraud. I am guilty of neither. Nobody even 
accuses me of it. It's not the government's place to decide when one 
particular company has made ``too much'' or 
``cornered the market.'' This is the consumer's job, not 
Janet Reno's or Bill Clinton's job.
    There is no monopoly, so long as other companies are free to 
compete with me; and they are free to compete with me. Government 
should stop telling the public it's only ``protecting'' 
them. No such thing is true. If the truth be told, the government is 
protecting my competitors--not the consumers.
    That's what this antitrust case is really all about.



MTC-00026861

From: George J, JUngermann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:40pm
Subject: Microssoft Settlement
    I write this e-mail to let you know I support the proposed 
settlement as a fair agreement. Any attempt to continue with the 
court case can only be described as an attempt to benefit the few 
and not the many affected by this case.
    It's time to end this law suit! The settlement is fair to all!
    Thanks,
    George Jungermann
    [email protected]



MTC-00026862

From: D (038) P Cochell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    SETTLE THIS LAWSUIT and let microsoft get back to their work of 
innovating and marketing tech products that the consumers want and 
need. The tech industry, the country's economy, and consumers 
information base needs the growth that an innovative company like 
Microsoft provides.
    Let them do it!
    Darrell Cochell
    Lakin, Kansas
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026863

From: Peter Mogensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft trials,
    Hello,
    I must say, I'm baffled by the development of the various 
Microsoft Anti Trust trials in the US. In most of Europe the US 
legal system has a reputation of being mostly about expensive 
lawyers and politics. Of course, people regards this as satire, 
. . . until it affects them self. Allow me to introduce 
myself: My name is Peter Mogensen and I'm a Danish citizen. I write 
to you since as a daily user of non-Microsoft products, I'm very 
concerned about the future of the computer industry with the 
prospects of Microsoft getting out of the current lawsuits the way 
the settlements are laid out. My daily work is software development, 
which you might think disqualifies me of representing the average 
consumers and users of computers and operating systems. I would 
argue that I am indeed a user of operating systems and other 
software products (both professionally and as a hobbyist) and my 
technical knowledge enables me to see parts of the problem that the 
average user (or lawyer) doesn't see.
    I see every day how computer users find it more and more 
difficult to live without Microsoft products. This would be 
understandable if Microsoft actually produced innovative, good 
quality products. But I don't see computers becoming easier to use 
for the average user. What I see is a lot of users being led into 
believe that their computer is easier to use than it is. Often at 
expense of security. Lack of security in Microsoft products (like 
Outlook/IE/IIS) has cost the users around the world over $10 billion 
per year the last 3 years. (http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/
reuters--wire/1453344l.htm) There's lots of other reasons to 
not choose Microsoft software. They are not as important here as the 
fact, that a lot of people actually want to use something else, but 
often can't.
    Why is that? Because Microsoft is enforcing a (almost worldwide) 
monopoly on operating systems, office applications, web browsers and 
a few other products.
    You might ask, why Microsoft can maintain such a monopoly if 
there's appealing reasons to choose other products? The answer lies 
in the way Microsoft conducts business. I would like to highlight 
two problems which have influenced my life in a negative direction:
    1) In the computer world and on the Internet, compatibility is 
everything.
    If over 80% of the users on the Internet are using a system 
incompatible with that of the remaining 20%, users are not migrating 
TO the minority but rather FROM. Microsoft knows this and does 
everything in its power to make the life of the minority as hard as 
possible bye making it difficult to communicate with the majority.
    This is done by heavy use of proprietary protocols and data 
formats and often by bending or extending their implementations of 
open standards to only work with Microsoft products. Examples are 
the ever changing file formats of MS Word, the J++ Java 
implementation (http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/111798ruling.html) and 
the modifications to the Kerberos protocol in Windows 2000 (http://
www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/05/15/000515oplivingston.xml).
    Of proprietary communication protocols, which Microsoft actively 
prevents others from implementing, SMB/CIFS is an example. Without 
the ability for other systems to talk this protocol, Microsoft are 
keeping other products out of the local network marked, since this 
is the official way for Windows computers to do file sharing among 
computers on a local area network.
    Please read: (http://linuxtoday.com/
news--story.php3?ltsn=2001-11-06-005-20-OP-MS) or here: (http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba/
2001-November/060505.html) http://perens.com/Articles/
StandTogether.html
    Most obvious for the average user is the tendency for the WWW to 
become ``best viewed with Internet Explorer''.
    More and more infrastructure in the western world are placed on 
the Internet and

[[Page 27883]]

it is becoming more and more important for citizens to be able to 
access this information. The problem is that Microsoft encourages 
people to implement web sites using technology only available on the 
Windows operating system and in Internet Explorer. Many web sites 
are specificly designed only to be viewed with Internet Explorer. 
Many home banking systems are like that. The World Wide Web was 
never meant to be viewed with only one client. The WWW was meant to 
be based on open standards to enhance interoperability. That's 
innovation. Microsoft does not encourage innovation!
    If this development is allowed to continue, we risk having a 
world were mere participation in the society requires you to run a 
Microsoft product, effectively paying taxes to Microsoft. I do not 
want that, and I do not believe you or your citizens want that 
either.
    2) The way Microsoft has controlled the OEM hardware 
manufactures during the 90's:
    Microsoft had the majority of the market share for operating 
systems.
    Knowing that most users doesn't make changes to the computer 
system they buy and that most users are reluctant to put too much 
effort into actively searching for alternatives once they have 
bought a computer it is easy to use your existing market share (and 
the need for compatibility) to increase your market share. I've 
personally been using the BeOS (former http://www.be.com) operating 
system with much satisfaction. This was an very innovative product 
fulfilling many of my needs as a ordinary user and as a developer. 
Including things MS Windows didn't supply. The efficiency and 
elegance of the system made it a breeze to use compared to the many 
problems Windows users often experience. Unfortunately the BeOS 
operating system is no more. Be inc was forced out of business by 
Microsoft. (http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0001/) 
The product (BeOS) has been bought by Palm inc, who officially has 
declared that it will not be continued.
    Now . . . the result of Microsofts monopoly and 
``innovative'' behavior is that over 10 years of 
development on a cutting edge operating system will not be available 
for consumers.
    I can not see how the current market situation in any way is 
good for the consumer. Microsofts competition has an almost 
impossible task in just being allowed into the market, since the 
market is more than often defined by Microsoft products and 
proprietary protocols.
    In the current market, the commercial model fails to work to the 
benefit of the consumer. Which products actually reach the consumer 
are dictated by commercial interests, not by innovation. BeOS is an 
sad example of this.
    Now, what should be done to ensure that the competition of an 
open market will benefit consumers?
    Simple: Require the use of open standards. And enforce it. 
Microsoft should be prohibited from using proprietary protocols and 
file formats in communication between computer systems and in 
interfaces between products. Public digital communication should 
require use of open standards.
    Restricting all protocols and file formats in public use to be 
based on open standards will guaranty every citizen equal rights to 
participate in the digital society which are becoming more and more 
important in the western world.
    regards,
    Peter Mogensen
    PS: Though not directly related to the trial, I was very 
appalled to hear the about the proposed settlement in the private 
antitrust case. (http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/svfront/
ms121101.htm) It's chocking to hear that anyone can think you can 
limit a monopoly by allowing it to increase its market share. Sorry 
to address this subject in this letter. I'll just appeal to this 
court to make an objective and thoroughly considered ruling in this 
important matter.



MTC-00026864

From: Dan Atkinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Lawsuit
    Stop punishing Microsoft for being a leader in its'' 
industry, and conversely rewarding those competitors who fail to 
measure up or would like to succeed at Microsoft's expense. This has 
potentially disasterous consequences for the future of American 
business. Regards, Daniel J. Atkinson, D.D.S.



MTC-00026865

From: Bob Karr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I think it does not fully redress the actions 
committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit their ability to 
commit similar actions in the future. I think it does nothing to 
correct or redress their previous abuses. I think some of the 
definitions in Section VI could be better defined . For example:
    I think that Definition K: Microsoft Middleware Product could 
specifically include Microsoft's .NET initiative, Microsoft Outlook 
and possibly Microsoft Office as Microsoft Middleware.
    I think that Definition U: Windows Operating System Product 
could include the Microsoft Tablet PC and Windows CE.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Karr Spring Grove, IL



MTC-00026866

From: Cris Naugle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:48pm
Subject: don't drop the ball!
    I spend ten hours a day working on computers and have done so 
for at least 15 years. I started working as a researcher in biotech 
and for the last 6 years I have been running a graphic design 
company and now we mainly design web sites.
    I can honestly say the biggest disasters I have encountered 
resulted from a MicroSoft product. They release software with major 
problems, their applications leave gaps in security that have cost 
corporations billions, and they have done some very sneaky thing to 
discredit or sabotage another company's product:
    1. When I was running an Animal Care and Use Committee at a 
Boston Cancer Institute, I was streamlining document handling. I 
used a document template included on Word for Windows. The document 
wouldn't print out correctly, I was almost fired because we almost 
missed our federal regulatory deadline -we had to call in outside 
contractors and consultants -the cause? MicroSoft Word required the 
use of a Mac font in their template... we used PC's and postscript 
printers, the Mac font caused a system crash. The fact they were 
using a Mac font in one of their templates may cause one to wonder 
where and how they got the template?
    2. It was always a joke that there was a flight simulator inside 
MS Excel, rumor was that the MS programmers placed it there as a 
joke. But those of use using the software were seriously effected in 
those days of low RAM, committed by force to not use any other 
software if using Excel.
    3. When the internet was young, it was a given that designers 
and programmers would create website that were cross-platform and 
cross-browser compatible -it was our lively-hod that our client's 
web sites could be viewed by everyone -then MS stepped in and tried 
to rewrite javascript if you opened a page in Explorer that 
contained this scripting -you crashed.
    4. I was consulting at a dot com when the I LOVE YOU virus hit, 
we were designing a web site for NYU and running close to being over 
deadline. Then one morning every image file on every computer was 
erased. This cost the company millions of dollars and all the 
consultants were let go. This hurt real people and I can only 
extrapulate this over all the companies hit.
    5. And what about the fund B Gates set up to provide 
scholarships for minorities and then said he couldn't find any who 
qualified!
    I could go on for days here but seriously, a lot of good 
companies, Apple, Sun, IBM etc have been seriously hurt -good 
software destroyed and good companies gone only because an 
megomaniac wants to be the biggest not the best just the biggest. 
This is not the American Way.
    Don't drop the ball here
    Christine J Naugle
    SpiralXdesing, Inc
    5949-8 Carolina Beach Road
    Wilmington, NC 28412
    910-452-3304 (local)
    866-774-7299 (toll free)
    910-793-1137 (fax)
    http://www.spiralxdesign.com
    We Build Web-Esteem



MTC-00026867

From: HAL TUCK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:46pm
Subject: MICROSOFT ANTI-TRUST CASE
    3213 Oakwood Boulevard S
    Sarasota, FL 34237-6412
    January 24, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001

[[Page 27884]]

    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I think it's high time that this whole Microsoft antitrust 
matter was over and done with. The government has no place 
interfering in private business. This is why I'm pleased that the 
settlement that you reached with Microsoft will mean and end in 
sight for this mess.
    I know that everyone will respect what Microsoft had put on the 
table in order to end this whole matter. I can only hope, as a 
Microsoft supporter, that elements of the agreement, like giving 
over its code and intellectual property rights to its competitors, 
will not prove too damaging to the company.
    I, along with every other American who depends on Microsoft 
products in his daily life, want to see an end to this whole affair. 
Three years is far too long to wait for a final settlement and both 
sides have far more important issues to worry about.
    Sincerely,
    Harold Tuck



MTC-00026868

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    Howard Callies 123 Spencer Rd N Onalaska, WA 98570



MTC-00026869

From: Suzanne Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ten Essential Consumer-Oriented Remedies
    Any settlement or final judgment must include remedies that 
provide:
    (1) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run the 70,000 
existing Windows applications without modification on all other 
operating systems.
    (2) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native 
versions of Microsoft Office applications on all other operating 
systems.
    (3) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or 
more of the four Office applications with competing applications, 
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services 
with any Microsoft application.
    (4) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native 
versions of Explorer, Media Player and other Microsoft Internet 
applications on all other operating systems.
    (5) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or 
more Microsoft Internet applications with competing applications, 
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services 
with any Microsoft application.
    (6) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace any 
component or feature in any Microsoft software product with superior 
or special purpose components or features.
    (7) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run any Microsoft 
software on computers that do not have Intel-compatible 
microprocessors.
    (8) A simple, affordable, and reliable way for software 
developers to access all the information they need to create 
products that offer consumers these choices.
    (9) A way to ensure that original equipment manufacturers 
provide consumers with equal access to computers with alternative 
operating systems, productivity applications, and Internet 
applications.
    (10) A ?crown jewel? provision establishing such serious 
consequences for non-compliance that Microsoft will not attempt to 
evade the necessary disclosure requirements and other mandates.
    Suzanne Taylor
    Los Angeles, CA



MTC-00026870

From: FigWax
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's competitors can't compete in the marketplace so they 
have to resort to barratry. The public doesn't suffer from 
Microsoft's savvy business practices.
    The public actually benefits by having only one operating 
system.



MTC-00026871

From: Eric B Venet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. Before I begin, I would 
like to echo the ideas suggested at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html and http://www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunneywine.html.
    My name is Eric B Venet, I am a second-semester junior at the 
University of Rhode Island, studying Computer Science. I am also an 
apprentice computer consultant for a small firm in Rockland, MA. In 
my academic, professional, and even private life I have certainly 
been somewhat of a victim of Microsoft's monopolistic tactics.
    I feel that this settlement is not strong enough for three main 
reasons:
    1. It does not protect the consumer from non-code-based 
monopolistic tactics.
    2. It does not provide adequate access to the Windows APIs.
    3. It does not allow for true competition.
    1. One of the most hotly debated items of the past year was the 
rumor of the draconian licensing requirements in the then-upcoming 
Windows XP. While what eventually came to be was quite tame compared 
to what was being discussed, licenses are an issue that the 
settlement doesn't quite pinpoint and solve. Microsoft needs to be 
prevented from trapping the consumer in an unfair license that may 
force him or her to keep using Windows, and keep paying for it. For 
example, even with this settlement in place, Microsoft could update 
Windows so that all data is encrypted, and cannot be viewed without 
a licensed, up-to-date version of Windows. This would be a situation 
where a consumer would have to pay money just to get access to his 
or her files. While this is an extreme example, it is also one that 
I believe is unpreventable under the terms of the settlement.
    2. As stated in the above-linked documents, a volunteer group 
could be barred from gaining access to API documentation, thus 
betraying the very nature of the antitrust findings. The importance 
of free and easy access to Windows APIs cannot be stressed, enough. 
Bugs or problems in the Windows code, itself, have caused many 
errors in the computers of clients that my firm deals with. The time 
spent repairing the damage done by Windows'' problems is time 
that is billed to the clients, costing them thousands of dollars 
each year. If the Windows APIs were more open, applications could be 
written to repair such damage automatically, or even avoid it in the 
first place. To be more clear, a monopoly is a bad thing, but a 
monopoly that deals in problematic products can be a fiscal and an 
emotional nightmare.
    3. Drawing on what I've said in number 2, what is to prevent 
Microsoft from putting code into Windows to keep competitor's 
applications from running? There is a nigh-infamous rumor that there 
exists code in Windows to make Netscape Navigator, a competing 
product to Microsoft Internet Explorer, crash or perform improperly. 
While this has never been ``proven'', using Netscape on a 
PC with Windows is an exercise in futility and frustration, while 
Internet Explorer serves up the same web pages with little or no 
problems. To speak of things of more truth than rumor, Microsoft 
recently removed support for ``Plug Ins'' from its latest 
versions of Internet Explorer. This sent many developers scrambling 
to rewrite their software so it would still function. With Microsoft 
freely-able to do such things, there is harm to consumers, and also 
unjust harm to ``competing'' firms. As far as I 
understand, there is nothing in the proposed settlement that will 
truly be able to prevent Microsoft from these tactics, again. The 
source code to Windows must be monitored or known in such a way as 
to prevent malicious code from interfering with third party 
software.
    To close, Microsoft is poised to extend its monopoly across many 
other facets of computerdom with its XBox video game console and its 
plans for .NET, a Framework for internet applications. Without a 
stronger settlement, the company's strangle-hold on software 
developers and consumers will grow even tighter. Computers are 
becoming integral in nearly all aspects of our everyday lives, and 
having one company with sole

[[Page 27885]]

control of software is a very dangerous prospect. The brashness of 
Microsoft's illegal and immoral tactics are becoming an unfortunate 
trend in the world of business, and frighteningly, this goes hand-
in-hand with a trend of government looking the other way and 
sticking it to the citizenry while these modern-day robber barons 
grow richer and more powerful. I realize that the job of government 
is a daunting one, but it is one that entails maintaining a balance 
of equality between all people, and at the moment, the balance is 
visibly shifted towards big business. There is a chance, here to 
make a true difference and return the realm of computers to one of 
general advancement of the technology, not just the advancement 
plans of one close-minded corporation. I hope the right decisions 
are made. Thank you for your time, and thank you for doing a job 
that I'm sure many others lack the fortitude to do.
    Sincerely,
    Eric B Venet
    [email protected]
    3 Lambert St
    Narragansett, RI 02882
    401-782-0259



MTC-00026872

From: Johnny Chidiac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I wish to express my extreme displeasure with the proposed 
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft over the 
antitrust violations of Microsoft. As a matter of court record, 
Microsoft has proven itself, throughout the proceedings of the case, 
to be exceptionally opportunistic and absurdly unethical on a number 
of levels. It should be obvious that Microsoft will stop at nothing 
in order to prevail in this case (or anywhere else, for that matter) 
and therefore, that any remedy short of splitting the company would 
do little to curtail their predatory and unethical business 
practices. Microsoft is the big bully on the block--the kid 
that grew up bigger and faster than the other kids--and it will 
keep on bullying until someone bigger and stronger puts a stop to 
it. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    John N. Chidiac



MTC-00026873

From: Marlin N Bracken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I truly believe the settlement is fair and adequate. Let 
Microsoft get on with their business so they can further the 
computer skills of us seniors at a price that is affordable.



MTC-00026874

From: Jewel H White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:53pm
Subject:
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the settlement offered recently is sufficient and 
this case should be closed. Otherwise, all the citizens of the U.S. 
are going to be deprived of future equipment that could make our 
lives easier and much more pleasant.
    Please don't let this continue--the ones that benefit will 
be the ones that are only trying to take a good company down.
    Mrs. J.H. White



MTC-00026875

From: Bob Sprenger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a result of their monopoly, Microsoft is able to deliver a 
very poor quality product. For example in my own case the following 
have occurred.
    1. About 5 years ago I installed Internet Explorer (a Microsoft 
program) and immediately my Netscape web browser stopped working. It 
was necessary to remove both Internet Explorer and Netscape browser 
and reinstall Netscape to get the browser to work. Microsoft would 
probably suggest User error or some such, however; a search of the 
internet indicated mine was not an isolated incident.
    2. Installed Windows 3.1 and found there was no compression 
software in the program as advertised. It turns out Microsoft was 
forced to remove the compression software because they 
``borrowed'' it from another company.
    3. Recently installed Microsoft Windows 98 second edition. 
Unfortunately, more quality problems, Microsoft included an invalid 
code to activate the the Operating System. Three days later the 
vendor supplied me with the proper code. In this case the code was 
one digit short. Since this code obviously uses a complex algorithm 
I can understand generating the wrong code, but missing one entire 
digit is just plain sloppy and displays once again a don't give a 
damn attitude.
    4. My current copy of win98 is painfully slow when performing 
line printing. Slower than DOS, WIN 3.1, WIN 95, or Linux. Suspect 
another quality problem, but not defined as yet.
    5. Last week I installed Quicken Turbo Tax. My first 
unrecoverable error in that program pointed at Internet Explorer. (a 
Microsoft Program)
    I would like to dump Microsoft, but they have forced virtually 
all the application vendors to use their OS to the exclusion of 
other Systems. The susceptibility of Microsoft software to rogue 
virus programs is well known. This is scary, particularly when Mr. 
Gates says he will make security his main emphasis. Frankly its, 
way, way late for this ``action''. I put these statements 
in the same category as his highly publicized charitable 
contributions--Public Relations WINDOW dressing. My 
understanding of the penalties assessed Microsoft because of the 
antitrust suit, were minuscule and will not inhibit their 
monopolistic operation. I believe the chances for real originality 
and creativity in the home computer industry has been greatly 
weakened. Sadly it looks like our Judiciary caved in and lost this 
one to Micro$oft. Sadly so did the people.
    Robert C. Sprenger
    1184 Via Mateo
    San Jose, Ca 95120



MTC-00026876

From: Bill Mundy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    204 Southwest 24th Street
    Blue Springs, MO 64015
    January 26, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    My name is Bill Mundy. I am a resident of Blue Springs, 
Missouri. I am writing to register my support for the settlement 
agreement reached in the Microsoft case.
    Microsoft has provided great products. If people don't like 
them, they have other choices. Apple, Linux and others. I remember 
pre-windows computers with everyone creating non compatible 
software. Think of the jobs Microsoft has created. Think of the 
changes Microsoft has brought to our world. The government didn't 
create these changes, private industry did. Don't stand in the way 
of progress.
    Microsoft has agreed to alter a number of its present business 
practices so as to create additional opportunities for software 
developers, distributors and consumers. Under this settlement, 
consumers will be afforded immediate relief as a result of 
Microsoft's agreement to open the Windows operating systems to 
competition from non-Microsoft software providers.
    I hope that the public sees the wisdom in implementing this 
agreement rather than continuing the case in Court. I hope your 
department does as well.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Yours truly,
    Bill Mundy



MTC-00026877

From: HAROLD TUCK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust case
    3213 Oakwood Boulevard S
    Sarasota, FL 34237-6412
    January 27, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I think it's high time that this whole Microsoft antitrust 
matter was over and done with. The government has no place 
interfering in private business. This is why I'm pleased that the 
settlement that you reached with Microsoft will mean an end in sight 
for this mess.
    I know that everyone will respect what Microsoft had put on the 
table in order to end this whole matter. I can only hope, as a 
Microsoft supporter, that elements of the agreement, like giving 
over its code and intellectual property rights to its competitors, 
will not prove too damaging to the company.
    I, along with every other American who depends on Microsoft 
products in his daily life, want to see an end to this whole affair.

[[Page 27886]]

Three years is far too long to wait for a final settlement and both 
sides have far more important issues to worry about.
    Sincerely,
    Harold Tuck



MTC-00026878

From: ted zaehringer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    forcing microsoft to gain marketshare is not much of a penalty 
no matter how you look at it.
    ***this settlement sucks!***
    thanks.
    ted.



MTC-00026879

From: Mark Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft must be severely punished for it's arrogant 
monopolistic business tactics. In addition, Microsoft (practically) 
forces end-users to use most, if not all, of their applications by 
tying them (at times without choice) to their operating system. 
Break them up into three separate businesses:
Operating System
Desktop Applications
Internet Applications
    Punish Microsoft in such a way as this which will encourage fair 
competition and innovation.
    Regards,
    Mark Miller
    [email protected]



MTC-00026880

From: Jan-Erik L(00E4)rka
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/27/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi!
    I am a user of the OS/2 operating system from IBM. I have found 
this to be a technologically superior product over the operating 
systems offered by Microsoft, including their latest version, 
Windows XP. Unfortunately, OS/2 has been in decline for a number of 
years from what I believe to be unfair monopolistic marketing 
tactics of Microsoft. As a result, vendors of OS/2 related products 
have also diminished over the years. Contrary to arguments by 
Microsoft that their products encourage competition, I believe the 
opposite is true; that Microsoft's marketing practices actually 
discourages competition and stunts technological growth. 
Consequently, I do not believe the Federal Government's proposed 
settlement with Microsoft, in its current form, is adequate and that 
stricter measures be imposed on the company to prohibit such tactics 
from being used in the future. In other words, I applaud the efforts 
to seek stricter measures and encourage the efforts to broaden the 
market for the interest of the consumer. In my opinion a settlement 
at this point wouldn't benefit the consumers interests.
    Sincerely,
    Jan-Erik L?rka
    Bergsj?
    Sweden



MTC-00026881

From: Daniel Herbst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:59pm
Subject: microsoft settellment
January 27 2002
Public Comment: Civil Action No. 98-1232
    As mentioned in the competitive impact statement. Appropriate 
injunctive relief in an antitrust case should: (1) end the unlawful 
conduct; (2) avoid recurrence; and (3) undo its anticompetitive 
consequences. I believe that justice would not be served unless all 
three of these conditions are met in full.
    How can the consequences of Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct 
be reversed without being forced to pay heavy fines? If Microsoft 
itself felt that even with its financial strengths and market 
position that it could not win the browser war without resorting to 
desperate tactics as stated by Christian Wildfeuer in February 1997 
(MS7 004346) and by James Allchin on January 2 (MS7 005526) and by 
Paul Maritz on June 20 1996 (MS6 6010346), (MS6 6010347), then how 
could any competitor hope to breech the high berriers to entry into 
the same market with a fraction of Microsoft's resources? Unless 
Microsoft is forced to forfeit the riches it inappropriately 
acquired through unlawful business practice, the balance of a 
competitive market will not be achieved.
    Microsoft has unjustly diminished and or destroyed economic 
growth of its competitors while at the same time reaping the 
benefits of this destruction. It is now publicly apparent that the 
vast and rapid growth of Microsoft was at the expense of both its 
corporate rivals and the paying public. A large part of any fines to 
be paid should be made payable to the Microsoft competitors that 
were most compromised to avoid creating inroads that would only 
serve to increase Microsoft market share. Take the market share that 
Apple computer enjoyed in the education sector before July 1994 
compared to today as an example of compensation due.
    An important point not mentioned in the Civil Action is the 
large financial ruin that the consumer himself/herself has had to 
absorb. Using myself as an example, I was forced to replace 
prematurely a sizable investment in computer hardware due to limited 
support and incompatibility issues. It is now apparent that 
Microsoft was at the forefront of these obstacles and responsible 
not only for the monetary loss, but also the personal ridicule and 
persecution I received for wanting to use an operating system other 
than Microsoft Windows. When Paul Maritz was quoted as saying we are 
going to cut off their air supply he should have realized that it 
would affect more than just his corporate rivals.
    Daniel P. Herbst



MTC-00026882

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that the time has come to end this costly and 
damaging litigation.



MTC-00026883

From: William R. Fautch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:01pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft settlement
    -Original Message -----
From: William R.Fautch
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 11:47 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft settlement
17304 N. Shady Lane
Newman Lake, WA 99025
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
e-mail [email protected]
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    There has recently been a settlement to the antitrust lawsuit 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. While I do not 
agree with the relentless pursuit of the Microsoft Corporation, I am 
happy to see that a settlement has been reached. The United States 
government needs to move on and worry about more important issues.
    Microsoft will now be working much closer and communicating much 
more with their competitors. They will be giving their competitors 
code and other information that makes up the Windows operating 
system.
    They will also be allowing their competitors to remove 
Microsoft-made software from Windows, and replace it with non-
Microsoft software. Enough is enough.
    Microsoft agreed to terms that extend well beyond what was issue 
in the initial suit, just for the sake of ending this senselessness. 
I support this settlement and would like to see it implemented as 
soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret L. Fautch



MTC-00026884

From: H P
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea
    Hetal Parikh



MTC-00026885

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:02pm
Subject: comment on the case
    I totally disagree with the government's position regarding 
Microsoft. A close look at the history of this ``case'' 
indicates that this is nothing more than a group of unhappy 
competitors---unable to develop a product as good as or as 
marketable as Windows and related programs---whining to an 
administration that is all too happy to punish success in business 
(though, interestingly enough, they have no problem collecting 
Microsoft and other business'' taxes to redistribute to those 
who are less productive!).
    Bill Gates should be congratulated, not persecuted, for 
contributing to our Country's immeasurable advances in technology 
and business brought about partly because of Microsoft's universally 
compatible and user-friendly platform.
    I dare anyone who disagrees to stand by their position and 
immediately remove all

[[Page 27887]]

Microsoft products (including Windows!) from their PCs.
    Thank You
    Bob Yesbek
    Director of Education
    Omega Studios School
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026886

From: Tami Krebs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I resent that the government feels a need to defend me as if I 
am unable to choose software that is most useful for me. I do not 
think that the government has any right to choose what software 
should or should not be installed on my computer. I use Microsoft's 
products and I choose to use their products not because they are 
installed on my computer but because they are beneficial products. 
These products enable me to easily transfer information from one 
program (i.e Word, Excel) to another (i.e. PowerPoint, Access) 
without having to convert information, which makes me more efficient 
both at home and at work. Microsoft's programs are also compatible 
with my Palm, which is easy for me to take information from my 
calendar at work and my calendar at home to sync them up. Please 
note, I have decided to use the Palm operating system, not Microsoft 
CE. In no way has Microsoft ever made me use their products. I 
cannot believe that Microsoft, a successful business, and its 
products (Microsoft Office Suite among others) are a threat to 
anyone.
    Please remember that this complaint stems from Microsoft's 
unsuccessful competitors not the the individuals who use the 
products. Unsuccessful businesses must not be allowed to set the 
rules for the markets in which they failed. Continued application of 
the antitrust laws against successful businessmen like Microsoft 
Chairman Bill Gates can only lead to corruption and economic 
disaster as shown in many other countries.
    I believe the United States should embrace success not throttle 
it. The United States should also be a place where anyone who works 
hard and exhibits intelligent decision making has the freedom to 
become a self-made person, just like Bill Gates is. This is the 
United States that would make me proud to be an American. Lastly, 
and most importantly, Microsoft has a fundamental right to its 
property. It is the government's job is to protect this right, not 
to take it away. With this in mind, please consider all of these 
points in your decision regarding Microsoft.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Tami Krebs
    15 Mallard Court
    Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
    [email protected]



MTC-00026887

From: Jeffrey Y. Sue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit does 
not go nearly far enough to curb the predatory anti-trust activities 
of Microsoft. When ATT and Standard Oil were brought to justice for 
anti-trust activities, both companies were broken apart with 
considerable restrictions on their actions. Microsoft should be 
broken apart into at least 4 companies: two competing operating 
system companies and at least two competing application companies. 
The competing operating system companies should truly compete by 
price, reliability and features, and should not be allowed to 
cooperate with each other. Similarly, the application companies 
should compete and not be allowed to cooperate. Microsoft has many 
tentacles, just as Standard Oil did, and some of these other 
products should be broken off into other companies, e.g., the 
internet provider MSN, hardware products such as mice, keyboards, 
and joysticks, the Microsoft television internet hardware, and the 
consumer game hardware, XBox. Unless Microsoft is broken up into 
competing companies, the American consumer, and competing American 
companies will all be losers, and ultimately, so will all Americans.
    Jeffrey Y. Sue, MD
    PO Box 25763
    Honolulu HI 96825



MTC-00026889

From: Sean and Charlene McGrew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am writing to you regarding Microsoft's Proposed Final 
Judgment as a concerned citizen. I urge you to critically examine 
the politics involved in this proposal, which sounds suspiciously 
and alarmingly lenient for a company that has been proven to be in 
violation of Antitrust laws. On numerous occasions Microsoft has 
abused its position as an illegal monopoly, adversely affecting 
several growing companies and thousands of Americans working to find 
their place in a competitive free-market. Antitrust laws were put in 
place to foster an environment of healthy competitiveness which 
would in turn further technology and stimulate the ecomomy. However, 
I do not believe that the PJF satisfactorily addresses Microsoft's 
violations in a way that this antitrust activity will be punished or 
come to an end. In fact, the PJF seems to be doing just the 
contrary, by conveying the message that their illegal activities are 
condoned, perhaps even encouraged. I am afraid of what might happen 
next to this freedom we have tried so hard to preserve if such an 
injustice is carried out and such a precedent set.
    I trust that you will deal with this issue with wisdom and 
integrity so that justice will be served. Respectfully, Charlene 
Chen McGrew Sean and Charlene McGrew 4111 Walnut Street #608 
Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215)349-6392



MTC-00026890

From: lesrose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:06pm
Subject: Micro Soft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I have been following this Micro Soft case since the government 
originally went after them and for the life of me can't see us 
continuing to spend tax dollars pursuing something that in my 
opinion should never have gone as far as it has. The other 
complaining Companies are doing well in the market place and I 
believer Micro Soft is being penalized unfairly for being too 
successful. Let's put an end to this and settle it the way it has 
been proposed and get along with other business that has some real 
meaning to our country like Terrorism, our Economy and a hundred 
other things that would make better use of our resources as a 
nation. I think you personally have done a great job since taking 
over your present position and I'' just urge you to concentrate 
on those things that have meaning for the majority of American and 
get this Micro Soft business behind us.
    Thank your,
    Les Bouzek
    133 Highway D
    Kaiser, Mo 650476



MTC-00026891

From: Darin O.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft Antitrust settlement. The 
focus of the remedies should be to disgorge any and all additional 
monopolies created by Microsoft as a result of its illegal use of 
its OS monopoly, and prevent Microsoft from forming new monopolies 
(from the illegal use of its OS monopoly). The current settlement 
allows Microsoft to keep these new monopolies (especially the 
browser monopoly, a PIVOTAL Internet technology) and does not 
adequately protect the United States from the illegal use of the OS 
monopoly in the future.
    Special attention must be given to this defendant. It has shown 
great contempt for all parties opposed to its monopolistic 
domination of the software market, this includes the judicial 
system. Microsoft has ignored past judicial orders from previous 
cases (i.e. the 1994 consent decree), lobbies the Legislative and 
Executive branches to step on the Judicial branch (and then 
misrepresents its lobbying efforts), and continues to develop 
products that extend its monopoly into other product categories.
    The proposed Microsoft Antitrust settlement must be thrown out, 
and re-worked. The nation puts its trust in you to guide this 
process.
    Yours Very Truly,
    Darin H. Okuyama



MTC-00026892

From: Donald Kleyensteuber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement does nothing to resolve the main monopoly issue: 
Microsoft's unfair use of its monopoly to take over the market for 
browsers by including their browser in their operating system. Most 
computer users do not have the skills needed to make the browser 
they prefer work properly without interference from Microsoft's. 
Microsoft

[[Page 27888]]

should be required to remove their browser from the operating system 
and clean it up so that any browser may be used.
    So far the government and the courts have done little or nothing 
to require meaningful corrective actions by Microsoft.
    Donald Kleyensteuber
    CC:Dan Gillmor



MTC-00026894

From: DJMaytag
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would to state that as a result of Microsoft's monopolistic 
actions on the computer industry, one of the choices I had as a 
consumer for what I would like to have on the desktop of my 
computer, has effectively been removed by Microsoft's actions, 
namely in limiting access of any other operating system to be 
installed alongside any Windows operating system.
    This limiting of choice to consumers has resulted in two areas 
which has hurt me as a consumer:
    (1) I cannot go to any computer retailer and choose which 
operating system I would like in my computer. If I want to use 
another operating system on my desktop, I have to purchase either a 
computer with no operating system AT A HIGHER COST or assemble a 
computer from the various components which make a computer, also AT 
A HIGHER COST to me as a consumer.
    (2) The restrictions have forced other companies out of 
business, ones which I could choose to use their products on my 
desktop. This is narrowing the options of operating systems 
available to me as a consumer, as more and more companies go out of 
business due to Microsoft putting up barriers to enty to anyone 
wishing to have an operating system product placed on a desktop 
computer.
    I urge you to take action which will reverse the situation this 
I face as a consumer that is paying the price for Microsoft's 
monopolistic actions.
    Mitch Anderson



MTC-00026896

From: Bj(00F6)rn S(00F6)derstr(00F6)m
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/27/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General,
    I am a user of the OS/2 operating system from IBM. I have found 
this to be a technologically superior product over the operating 
systems offered by Microsoft, including their latest version, 
Windows XP. Unfortunately, OS/2 has been in decline for a number of 
years from what I believe to be unfair monopolistic marketing 
tactics of Microsoft. As a result, vendors of OS/2 related products 
have also diminished over the years. Contrary to arguments by 
Microsoft that their products encourage competition, I believe the 
opposite is true; that Microsoft's marketing practices actually 
discourages competition and stunts technological growth. 
Consequently, I do not believe the Federal Government's proposed 
settlement with Microsoft, in its current form, is adequate and that 
stricter measures be imposed on the company to prohibit such tactics 
from being used in the future. In other words, I applaud your 
efforts to seek stricter measures and encourage you to stand your 
ground.
    Sincerely,
    Bj?rn S?derstr?m
    ?sterbybruk
    Sweden



MTC-00026897

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Consumer interests has been well served and it is time to settle 
this costly and damaging litigation now. Please do not keep this 
going. It is the average person who is to be served and not big 
business. As an individual I think it is time to stop now.
    Thank You,
    Sincerly,
    Richard Beard



MTC-00026899

From: Betsy Lehrfeld
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I write to object to the proposed settlement as not being in the 
public interest. The settlement leaves the Microsoft monopoly 
intact. It is vague and unenforceable. It leaves Microsoft with 
numerous opportunities to exempt itself from crucial provisions.
    A solution to the Microsoft monopoly problem should be market 
based and self-enforcing. Any solution that requires constant 
policing and is perceived as punitive will only contribute to 
Microsoft's sense that it has been wronged and encourages a culture 
of evasion ? already evident in various recent Microsoft actions.
    The answer is to take away Microsoft's ability to exercise 
monopoly power. To do this, the applications barrier to entry must 
be reduced or eliminated. Any settlement or order needs to provide 
ways for consumers to run any of the 70,000 existing Windows 
applications on any other operating system.
    Consumers need a la carte competition and choice so that they, 
not Microsoft, decide what products are on their computers. The 
settlement must provide ways for any combination of non-Microsoft 
operating systems, applications, and software components to run 
properly with Microsoft products.
    The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States are in 
the public interest and absolutely necessary, but they are not 
sufficient without the remedies mentioned above.
    The court should hold public proceedings under the Tunney Act, 
and these proceedings must give citizens and consumer groups an 
equal opportunity to participate, along with Microsoft's competitors 
and customers.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Betsy E. Lehrfeld
    7214 Blair Road, NW
    Washington, DC 20012
    (202) 882-6664



MTC-00026900

From: S. Gallagher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trail Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Email: [email protected]
Re: Microsoft Proposed Final Judgement Comment
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft Final Judgement. My comments center around minor 
modifications to subsections III.A.2 and III.C.4 concerning original 
equipment manufactures (OEM) installation of alternative operating 
systems. Given the central importance of restoring competition for 
antitrust relief I believe that clarification of subsection III.A.2 
and III.C.4 and an additional aspect of the extant OEM operating 
system license arrangement merit consideration. I hope that you will 
concur that these adjustments will enhance the possibility that 
competition may one day return to the present monopoly in the 
personal computer market.
    A. Subsections III.A.2 and III.C.4 both refer to OEM's shipping 
personal computers with products in addition to Microsoft products 
or multiple operating systems. The language in these provisions 
would not prohibit Microsoft from retaliating if an OEM offered 
consumers a single alternative operating system. Given that a 
monopoly was found to exist and that the purpose of antitrust 
enforcement is the restoration of competition, shouldn't OEM's be 
able to offer consumers alternatives without fear of retaliation 
from the monopolist?
    B. At present the OEM Windows Operating System license requires 
recourse to the OEM by a consumer if the consumer does not accept 
the terms of the licensing agreement. If consumers remove an OEM 
installed Windows Operating System product before using it they 
should be insured of recompense from either the OEM or Microsoft. 
Given that Section III.B requires the publishing of the royalty 
schedule for Windows Operating System Products it should be possible 
for consumers to know the exact cost of the OEM installed Windows 
Operating System and, as a result, their corresponding recompense if 
they chose not to accept the license. Given this information a 
consumer could make a rational choice between the OEM installed 
Windows Operating System and some other alternative operating 
system. Given that a monopoly was found to exist in the Personal 
Computer operating system market, it seems the Proposed Final 
Judgement should insure that customers are not needlessly charged 
for the

[[Page 27889]]

monopolist's product if they do not use it. As a customer, I should 
not have to buy a product I don't want. If I do not agree to 
Microsoft's licensing agreement language, my recourse should include 
them, not only the OEM.
    Microsoft can make very good products, this comment is being 
created and transmitted using them. I applaud the efforts towards 
reaching an appropriate settlement.
    Thank you for your time and the opportunity to comment.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Gallagher
    3229 Taylor Spring Lane
    Harrisonburg VA 22801



MTC-00026901

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:22pm
Subject: settlement
    Please settle this dispute and let's get on with life. Hasn't 
the economy suffered enough?



MTC-00026902

From: Lloyd E Wiles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe in American Free Enterprise. If we out preform our 
competitors we should be able to reap the benefits of our hard work.
    I feel the break up of the telephone company was a disservice to 
the American public as would be the breaking up Microsoft.
    I think to further penalize Microsoft would a blow to free 
enterprise in America.
    Please drop any further action.
    Lloyd Wiles
    34 Peavey Ave.
    Windham Maine 04062



MTC-00026903

From: Andrew Pizzello
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    Microsoft has unlawfully used its monopoly power to greatly 
subdue the competition, causing damages to many companies including 
Apple Computer, Inc. and consumers worldwide. It is to my knowledge 
that Microsoft Corporation holds approximately 90% of the computer 
operating system market.
    Naturally, consumers have a minuscule selection of products and 
services from Microsoft's competition when 90% of the personal 
computers purchased are sold preinstalled with Microsoft Windows and 
other Microsoft technologies such as Internet Explorer, MSN Internet 
Service, and MSN Messenger. Many beginners and new computer buyers 
will be unaware of other products and services available with the 
vast array of Microsoft products already installed on the computer 
for their `convenience'.
    Microsoft's acts are in violation of the Sherman Act. These anti 
competitive actions have caused great damages to innovative 
companies accepting the challenge to legally compete and base their 
successes on customer loyalty and quality. Many companies have 
incurred staggering losses due to Microsoft's negligent business 
practices. For example, Apple Computer, Inc. was financially 
handicapped by Microsoft's operating system monopolization between 
the years 1995-1998. After being criticized by industry 
veterans, Microsoft invested capital into Apple Computer in order to 
keep operations functional for the sake of hiding future 
allegations.
    The fall of Apple Computer would have provided Microsoft, Inc. 
with 95% of the world's personal computer operating system market.
    The overwhelming market share percentage is a strong indication 
of unfair business practices and violation of United States law. I 
am fully in support of any consequences Microsoft, Inc. should incur 
during the court proceedings. For the future of fair business 
practices, I ask that the U.S. Department of Justice prosecute 
Microsoft, Inc. within full accordance of the United States 
Constitution.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Pizzello



MTC-00026904

From: Gabrielle Comfoltey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:27pm
Subject: Settle the Microsoft Case Please!!
    Please settle the case against Microsoft for once and for all 
and let this company get back to doing what it does 
best--contribute to the world economy and its people.
    The extent of damage that the DOJ's actions have had and will 
continue to have on technology innovation and American enterprise is 
totally out of proportion to the ``crime'' that Microsoft 
has been deemed to have committed.
    Yes, Microsoft used aggressive tactics to secure its business. 
So to do a multitude of other large corporations.
    Microsoft is one of the most successful companies to be built 
EVER! It has provided thousands and thousands of jobs and created 
untold wealth not only for its owners and employees but also for the 
millions of shareholders.
    Thanks to the continuing vendetta against the company by the DOJ 
and the nine states and their lawsuits, millions of dollars in 
pension funds and senior's investment accounts have been lost.
    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
    I believe that the DOJ is taking too much control into its own 
hands. The government should not be trying to control business to 
the extent that is.
    After Microsoft, who will be next? In many respects I think that 
the various government lawyers need to continually justify their 
existence. As I stated in a previous email, fighting a battle in the 
courtrooms and boardrooms against successful companies is not what I 
consider to be the primary role of our judicial system. Microsoft, 
and its founders Bill Gates and Paul Allen, through their phenomenal 
success have been able to give incredibly generous public gifts to 
the schools, the arts, health organizations, etc. Why is the 
government so intent on destroying the creative initiative of our 
most brilliant entrepreneurs. Surely Scott McNeely and Larry Ellison 
when they spearheaded this rout of Microsoft didn't have in mind 
that the entire industry should be turned on its head.
    This government, and indeed the nation, has its priorities 
wrong. There are a multitude of SERIOUS issues facing our nation and 
what do we have taking up huge amounts of time and money?
    I am sure it is easier and more lucrative for the lawyers and 
politicians to spend countless hours and taxpayer dollars on 
meetings, high priced hotel and board rooms, expensive retainers and 
offices, etc etc than on the real but not so ``tidy'' 
issues that plague America. If the governments and their agencies 
would spend half the time and energy on the less glamorous issues 
just think what could be accomplished. Where do I think government 
dollars should be directed: Here are a few suggestions:
    Housing for the ill, homeless and future boomers who will not be 
able to find accommodation as they approach the next decade.
    Adequate health care for everyone.
    Repair and replacement of the infrastructure in our cities and 
towns. Neglect of the basic infrastructure--the roads, 
freeways, sewer, water and power conduits--will result in a 
breakdown of many systems if these are not dealt with on a proactive 
basis.
    Repair of our schools and school systems. Our children and 
teachers are being shortchanged. We do not need government 
intervention in the education curriculum as much as we need 
government support to provide healthy, safe, properly equipped 
classrooms and support for better teachers.
    Fix the unequitable system of justice wherein we have first time 
offenders and youthful offenders incarcerated with hardened 
criminals.
    And, of course, use the government's resources to continue the 
fight against terrorism, both external and domestic, and work with 
our nation's largest companies rather than against them.
    I could go on, but you get the picture.
    --SHOULD HAVE THE COURAGE TO MAKE SOME SENSE OF THIS 
MICROSOFT CASE. DO NOT THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER. LEAVE 
MICROSOFT ALONE AND GET ON WITH TAKING CARE OF THE REAL NEEDS OF THE 
NATION!



MTC-00026905

From: Bobbie Bamford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:28pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. . . . .
    DO YOU KNOW WHAT JUSTICE MEANS??? DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE YOU ARE 
BEING FAIR TO MICROSOFT REGARDING THIS SETTLEMENT? THIS IS 
``SUPPOSED'' TO BE A ``FREE'' COUNTRY--THE 
LAND OF OPPORTUNITY??!! MICROSOFT HAS DONE WONDERS FOR OUR ECONOMY, 
WHICH NEEDS ANOTHER ``BOOST'' RIGHT NOW. YOU ``BIG-
WIGS'' AND OUR GOVERNMENT HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A TOUGH TIME THE 
MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN IS HAVING RIGHT NOW

[[Page 27890]]

NOR DO I THINK ANY OF YOU CARE! YOU HAVE THE COUNTRY BY A TAIL WHILE 
YOUNG COUPLES WITH FAMILIES CANNOT MAKE ENDS MEET BECAUSE WE ARE 
TAXED TO DEATH.
    I THINK WASHINGTON DC HAS ENOUGH TO DO WITH OUR TERRORIST 
SITUATION AND THE THEIVES OF ENRON WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT MICROSOFT.
    SINCERELY,
    BOBBIE BAMFORD
    ARIZONA



MTC-00026907

From: Frank Zepf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to express my opinion on the Microsoft Settlement,I feel 
that it is fair to all parties concerned.
    Many of Microsoft's competitors oppose the agreement for their 
own good and are trying to generate public comment urging that it be 
rejected.
    Microsoft has a good product and if someone does not like it let 
them buy something else.
    If some does not like the Internet Explorer you can download 
Netscape for free.
    Thank you,
    Frank V. Zepf
    52 Pennsylvania Ave.
    Massapequa,NY 11758-4838
    Phone 516-798 0353



MTC-00026908

From: Grubert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    We are opposed to the Micosoft Settlement because it has 
insufficient guarantees that Microsoft will not continue to use it's 
desktop monopoly to damage competition.
    Please consider that Microsofts programming API's are the 
computing equivalent of legal contracts, and must be consistant and 
stable in order for competition to be meaningful. It would be wise 
to find some way to ensure that Microsoft does not use changes in 
it's API only to trip up competitors products by changing behaviours 
in the undefined areas of this technical contract.
    A contract must be clear, sufficiently complete and retain it's 
meaning over time. So should a published API spec by a monopolist.
    Given that the API is now the playing field of software product 
competition, the API is an area that needs to be regulated.
    In addition, OEM licences for MS products should be the same, 
i.e., MS should not be able to favor one OEM vendor over another as 
this allows them to punish OEMs for offering competing products.
    Thank You
    G.R. Svenddal
    Gromit Consulting
    Minneapolis MN.



MTC-00026909

From: Allen Tien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The problems with MS reflect larger and very important issues on 
a national and international scale. What is the role of government 
in regulating huge multinational corDorati0ns? Why is there a 
growing pattern of manipulation and a widening gap between what 
corporations say and what they do? The recent emergence of unethical 
and probably illegal behavior at Enron and Anderson is only the 
latest of a number of known cases. There are certainly many more 
questionable but not publicly questioned situations. In the case of 
Microsoft, their pattern of disingenuous statements, distortions, 
and outright lies appears to be based upon their assumption that the 
average user does not understand information technology and the 
market dynamics of information technology, and that lawmakers and 
judges also don't understand. That pattern has been present since 
early in Microsoft's history. Most recently, they have added more 
``standard'' American business practice, making large cash 
contributions to politicians, and hiring teams of lobbyists.
    One of their main themes is that they are always doing whatever 
they do for the ``benefit of the customer.'' They 
repeatedly make statements about innovation and competition and 
serving the interests of customers, but these statements fly in the 
face of their own history. They imply that customers are those who 
accept Microsoft big brother version of reality, and label others as 
frustrated competitors who resort to legal attacks rather than 
innovation, or the ``cancer'' of open source software such 
as Linux (which they cannot control or co-opt). Depending upon the 
specific context, at times the degree of hypocrisy seems to approach 
delusion. Microsoft has not been averse to using legal tactics, 
threats, and lawsuits to try to achieve their goal of complete 
domination.
    Meanwhile, they continue to design their products and product 
strategies to create dependencies, using their control of the 
desktop operating system to undermine competing applications such as 
WordPerfect. For most users, there is not much difference between 
Word, Wordperfect, Ami Pro, or other word processing packages, 
spreadsheets, or presentation slide system. Why is then is Microsoft 
Office's market share so large?
    In the same way Microsoft crushed Netscape they crushed 
WordPerfect, which at one time had similar market share as Netscape. 
Microsoft Office was pushed onto users using the same or similar 
tactics that were used to push IE onto users. Now that Microsoft has 
a monopoly not only with the operating system but with Office, they 
continue to manipulate users through technical issues such as file 
formats. For example, the default installation of Microsoft Office 
does not include the import filters for WordPerfect files. It is not 
unusual for Word users who receive a WP file to think that the file 
is damaged or incompatible because when they try to open a WP file, 
Word will generate a message that suggests something is wrong. Even 
if the user understands that it is easy for Word to import a WP file 
if the import filter is installed, they may not have convenient 
access to the Office CD to install the filter. These relatively 
small maneuvers nevertheless add up to continued pressure on users 
to use Office, further cementing this application stranglehold, 
while Microsoft might still claim that they ``fully 
support'' interoperability with other applications.
    As person who bought his first PC in 1986 and has used different 
version of DOS, Windows, Mac, and Unix-based operating systems, and 
who has been involved with software development for many years, I 
have observed Microsoft's business practices from a technically 
intimate perspective. I have seen first hand phenomena such as 
Windows 3.1 generating an error with Digital Research DOS (DR-DOC). 
It seemed like sabotage then, and subsequent evidence indicates that 
it was in fact deliberate. I used disk compression utilities from a 
company that was subsequently put out of business by Microsoft's 
continuing ``integration.'' I recall the out-of-court 
settlement where Microsoft paid over $100 million to Stac, a disk 
compression vendor that had first worked with Microsoft and was then 
dumped by Microsoft. After dumping Stac, Microsoft released their 
own disk compression bundled with DOS, essentially taking away the 
market from Stac. It was technologically clear that Microsoft had 
stolen Stac's intellectual property, but because the settlement was 
out-of-court, they never admitted any wrong-doing. One wonders if 
Bill Gates or Steve Allen or other at Microsoft really think they 
did anything wrong or not.
    After Windows version 1 and 2, Windows 3.11 was finally usable, 
and did offer useful functionality. At that time Word Perfect was, 
arguably, the best word processing application available. Why then 
did every computer come with Microsoft Word? It was an inferior 
product for many years. It seems that it was because of Microsoft's 
bundling and pricing manipulations of PC manufacturers and 
distributers. It was not due to market demand, at that time. 
Microsoft understands very well the dynamics of market choice, and 
the pressures placed on customers when an increasing number of 
people use their products. Why did they change file formats with 
each new version of Word? They claim it was for technical reasons, 
but in typical Microsoft fashion, that claim is misleading. There 
may have some minor technical reasons, but the larger and obvious 
reason is to shift the dynamics in their favor. Why do they 
currently not provide conversion filters for Wordperfect as the 
default installation? As a person who continues to use Wordperfect, 
when I send files to colleagues, many of them are unable to import 
the files into Word, and because they do not understand the inner 
workings of Word and Microsoft's compulsion for market dominance, 
they tell me things like ``Your file was bad,'' or 
``Word cannot import the file.'' Of course it is easy to 
install the import filter (if one can find the Windows CD). But for 
many people, this creates a significant barrier. This is one of the 
many ways that Microsoft uses their illegal monopoly to leverage 
even greater market share and to create false impressions that other 
software is inferior or incompatible.
    Using revenue from their monopoly to give away products to 
destroy competing

[[Page 27891]]

companies, such as Netscape, is an obvious example. Outright 
sabotage is perhaps a thing of the past. However, even recently they 
have been found by Kodak to have configured Windows XP in a manner 
to undermine Kodak and foster Microsoft products. Again, this is 
behavior that emerges in numerous ways, relentlessly using their 
monopoly in every possible way to expand their market range and 
control. Their fervent claims to be doing all this entirely for the 
customer border upon delusion. Surely all companies are trying their 
best to provide customers with great products. It just happens that 
one of them controls the core technology, the operating system, that 
other applications all depend upon. Their use of this was found to 
be illegal, and the appeals court affirmed this. Unfortunately, the 
decision to split the operating system and application parts of 
Microsoft into two companies, which is the only full remedy, has 
been reversed. It needs to be reinstated. Why is this the only 
remedy that will be effective? Why should be government and the 
courts undertake this draconian step? Why shouldn't we just 
``let the market decide?'' There are many complex legal 
arguments, but I believe the main issue is simple. The antitrust law 
that is currently in place was based upon consideration of the role 
of government with respect to unfettered growth in the late 1800's 
and early 1900's of large corporations such as Standard Oil. This 
was a period that could be characterized as robber capitalism, where 
anything goes. It resulted in the establishment of industrial 
systems that provided consumers with good things. But it also 
concentrated power into the hands of a relatively small group. The 
relentless nature of power was recognized by our founding father, 
hence the checks and balances that are a fundamental part of our 
society. It is important that the balance of power be maintained. It 
is a serious issue for our future. If the distribution of power is 
no longer balanced, we risk adverse and even destructive 
consequences. Microsoft has been successful in lowering costs 
relative to early monopolies such as IBM, and being part of the 
rapid growth of personal computers (they claim they are responsible 
for this, but it is not hard to imagine that the demand was there 
and they rode the wave, rather than creating it). But the thinking 
and tactics they used to gain dominance were destructive to other 
companies and to customer choice all along, and now that they have 
even more power, all the evidence suggests that they will continue 
to use it in the same manner.
    As another example of their thinking, it is now apparent that 
Microsoft considers open source software such as Linux, Apache, and 
other software to be a threat to their market control. They have 
called open source software a ``cancer.'' At they same 
time they make statements about the importance of being allowed to 
compete without restrictions. It would be fine and wonderful if 
Microsoft was to use their huge resources to compete on the basis of 
really improving their products. It is not fine and wonderful that 
they be allowed to continue using their monopoly to manipulate and 
force customers to use their products.
    We use Microsoft Windows as our development and implementation 
platform. With Windows 2000 and XP, it has finally become a 
reasonably stable and effective operating system. However, I do not 
use Microsoft Office, Explorer, Microsoft development tools, 
Outlook, or other Microsoft products and tools. There are alternate 
products and tools that are not only equal but superior to Microsoft 
products and tools. However, each incremental step the Microsoft 
takes appears to be designed to increase the pressure to use 
Microsoft products and tools. We do not want to be forced to do so.
    To provide some personal background, I am a licensed physician 
and Board Certified psychiatrist who also has a Master's degree in 
biostatstics. I was a tenure track faculty member at the Johns 
Hopkins School of Public Health with a joint appointment in the 
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine from 1988 to 1997. Since then I 
have been engaged as the President of Medical Decision Logic, Inc., 
a small medical and public health software company. Hence I consider 
the Microsoft situation from several perspectives, as an experienced 
user, a software designer and developer, from broader social and 
cultural perspectives, and from a psychiatric understanding.
    Based upon Microsoft's long-standing pattern of behavior and 
relentless drive to greater market power, heedless of ethical and 
most recently legal rules, I conclude that the only remedy that can 
prevent continuation of the same behavior is a structural remedy 
that separates and frees Microsoft divisions to compete fairly in 
their markets. Simply put, the operating system group will be free 
to support all applications without engaging in discouragements and 
subtle sabotage for competing applications, and the application 
group will be free to create applications for all platforms, 
including Linux platforms. This would result in even greater 
contributions to the market and better choices for customers.
    Any remedy or settlement that is not structural is unlikely to 
be effective, because otherwise Microsoft will continue to be 
Microsoft, a highly aggressive, unethical, and illegal monopoly that 
does not respect the government, the courts, or anyone who disagrees 
with them.
    Allen Y. Tien, MD, MHS
    President and Research Director
    Medical Decision Logic, Inc.
    724 Dulaney Valley Road
    Towson, MD 21204
    &
    Clinical Associate Professor
    West Virginia University School of Medicine
    Department of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry
    West Virginia University
    Morgantown, WV
    web site address: www.md-logic.com or www.mdlogix.com
    tel: 410-828-8948, 410-821-5618
    fax: 410-828-8948



MTC-00026910

From: Colin Chicoine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:32pm
Subject: Re: Applelinks--The MACINTOSH Portal!
    I will excuse my self for my english witting skills.
    I would like to take this moment to ask the US justice 
department to break apart MICROSOFT as much as you legally can so no 
one software company can ever regain control of the market. I as a 
consumer do not like to be told what to buy. but for the last 10 
years the only operation system available to the home market was 
Microsoft windows.
    Just recently are we seeing other operating systems more 
available to the public thanks to the publicised Microsoft anti 
trust case. New applications for the ``other'' operating 
systems are making there way to the market but still Microsoft buys 
off bright ideas and keeps them excluesif for the Microsoft 
Operating system. Take for example Halo from Bungie Software. This 
was and is a revolutionary action game that was developed for Apple 
Macintosh computers. This was going to give a tremendous boost to 
the Macintosh operating system. But not to long ago Microsoft bought 
off Bungie. Now with no guarantees for a Macintosh release I just 
pray! I also would like to mention that Microsoft should be forced 
to follow the internet, video, mp3 standards and ban Microsoft the 
development of such new standards without the aprouval of the 
software developping community.
    Make Microsoft pay for there abusive practices because if you 
don't they will be stronger.
    Colin Chicoine
    Canada, Quebec



MTC-00026911

From: Donald Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:33pm
Subject: January 27, 2002
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to voice my support for the settlement of the 
Microsoft case. It is high time that this case comes to an end. This 
case is an embarrassment to American business, as Microsoft has 
merely adopted an aggressive business strategy and created products 
that gave them an edge in the market. This is what business is all 
about, but now Microsoft is forced to defend their success and 
change their entire way of doing things.
    As part of the settlement, Microsoft is going to give away their 
source codes and server protocol, even though it should be protected 
as part of their own intellectual property.
    But they are willing to give up a lot so that this lawsuit can 
be ended as soon as possible.
    Please do your part and see that Microsoft is not further 
punished for transforming our computer industry into an 
international model of success. Please accept this settlement, it is 
the right thing for our struggling economy.
    Sincerely,
    Donald H. Lee
    Ann R. Lee

[[Page 27892]]



MTC-00026912

From: cjbells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
12134 SE 13th Street
Bellevue, WA 98005
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As someone who has not supported the harsh direction of the 
government's anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation, I 
would like to add my approval of the pending legal settlement. This 
is a realistic compromise that should please all parties involved 
and halts the ongoing waste of taxpayer dollars that would be better 
spent on our terrorism effort.
    With this fairly negotiated agreement, both sides have pledged 
to several significant steps that will encourage competition in the 
software market. Software developers will receive access to 
Microsoft technologies and be able to license its intellectual 
property, while enjoying the increased flexibility of computer 
makers to select the software programs of their choice. The 
continuing verification provided by a technical committee of 
software experts should make this plan quite productive when 
implemented.
    As our economy struggles to rebound from a weak stock market and 
ongoing recession, it seems like a measured solution would be the 
best one to this dispute at this point. Please accept these very 
balanced terms and allow the new economy to stabilize and grow 
without further disruption.
    Sincerely,
    Clyde Bell



MTC-00026913

From: Aedis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice my dissatisfaction with the following 
elements of the proposed final settlement (PFJ) reached with 
Microsoft:
    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 defines ``API'' in a way that allows for 
exploitation by Microsoft.
    The PFJ defines ``Microsoft Middleware'' in a way that 
allows for exploitation by Microsoft.
    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 defines ``Windows'' in a way that excludes 
many applicable Windows-based products.
    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, which is unacceptable for many reasons 
including:
    1. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source or Free Software apps from running on Windows.
    2. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    3. 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, which is unacceptable for many 
reasons including the following:
    1. 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 respectfully insist that this settlement be rewritten to 
correct these issues. The corrective measures I support can be found 
at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Schallhammer



MTC-00026914

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
US Dept of Justice
601 D St NW
Suite 1200
Washington, D. C. 20530-0001
    Dear Ms Hesse,
    I am deeply disturbed that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has 
moved to settle with Microsoft (MS) in a manner that leaves 
consumers and professionals subjugated to dictatorial business 
practices. I have a quarter century of experience in logistics and 
as a marketing/communications consultant. In these roles, I've 
observed how monopolistic MS information technology (IT) inhibits 
productivity. As a proposal developer working on numerous bids with 
IT companies for commercial and government contracts, I hear 
frequent complaints from clients and co-workers about the 
limitations of MS systems and software and their lack of 
compatibility and interoperability.
    The well-documented MS shortcomings are costly and prevent 
hardware and software competition that could speed innovations and 
IT accessibility to more consumers around the world.
    During my career on active duty and in the reserves with the U. 
S. Air Force our government passed competition legislation to 
resolve problem problems such as the $600 hammer and $1000 aircraft 
toilet seat that gained such media notoriety in the 1980s. 
Similarly, any resolution of the MS case that does not maximize 
competition and consumer choice is not in the best public interest.
    At it's most basic level, any resolution of the MS anti-trust 
case must provide complete information needed for software 
developers to:
    1. Write an affordable and complete Windows Application 
Environment so Windows applications run on other operating systems 
without modification;
    2. Create products that exhange files, data, and services with 
any MS product;
    3. Replace components in Windows, Office, and Internet Explorer 
with superior or special purpose components; and
    4. Modify MS software to run properly on computers wtih 
different microprocessors.
    Without these settlement provisions, consumers working with the 
70,000 MS Windows applications will continue to face unnecessary 
costs, limited choices, operational complexity, and reliability 
problems.
    Enforcement provisions in the proposed settlement are also 
inadequate and virtually assure the monopolistic MS grip will 
continue to stifle competition, creativity, and cost-effectiveness. 
Since the Tunney Act allows for public proceedings, the DOJ should 
annouce such sessions at the earliest opportunity to allow consumers 
to show that an adequate settlement must encompass much more than 
the current proposition.

[[Page 27893]]

    Sincerely,
    Redmond H. Handy
    President, Government and Business Consulting
    1400 16th St NW
    Suite 330
    Washington, D. C. 20036
    202-462-8800



MTC-00026915

From: jrshears
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    We believe that the litigation against Microsoft has gone on too 
long. It is time to settle without further litigation. We believe 
the consumer's interest has been well served, and Microsoft is being 
penalized plenty with the current settlement proposal. Please ... 
settle and let Microsoft get on with its business!!!
    Sincerely yours,
    Jacquelline Z. and Leslie R. Shears
    1676 Pinecrest Drive
    Orange Park, FL 32003



MTC-00026916

From: Peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:39pm
Subject: Settlement
    Sirs,
    The settlement needs to be as strong as possible to control the 
monopoly's practices that inhibit the growth of competition in many 
technology fields.
    Peter J. McMenamin



MTC-00026917

From: Benjamin Hays
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern;
    I have been a user of Microsoft products for the last 8 years. I 
have used their products by my own choice, not by coerison or force. 
And if Microsoft gets broken up, I will lose that choice.
    By puting any restrains on Microsoft's business, the quailty of 
their products (i.e. Windows, Office, Internet Explorer) will 
decrease. That quailty will not decrease due to a faulty busines 
idea, or marketplace competition, but because of the involment of 
the government.
    We, the people, will make our own choices. And we, the people, 
will choose, though our own pocketbooks, to keep Microsoft in 
business, or if they should go bankrupt.
    Sincerly,
    Benjamin Hays



MTC-00026918

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice:
    I am 51 year old nanny housekeeper contacting you to support the 
Microsoft settlement now under review. Enough litigation! It serves 
none of us in a positive way. It seems that the settlement reached 
is in everyone's best interest.
    AOL has had, and continues to have, other avenues to use in 
pursuit of solving their disagreements with Microsoft. Litigation 
costs the taxpayers.
    Enough!
    Sincerely,
    Gina Ryken



MTC-00026919

From: john anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The three-year-long process of filing suit against Microsoft is 
about to come to a close. I am concerned about the impact on the USA 
economy and the industry in particular considering the time and 
money wasted in litigation. In my opinion, any further litigation is 
sponsored by competition of Microsoft. The holdouts clearly hope to 
prolong settlement as a weapon against innovation and of little cost 
to them.
    Microsoft has agreed to a long list of terms, some of which were 
not even issues in the original lawsuit.
    Microsoft agreed to computer-making flexibility, meaning that 
Microsoft agreed to grant computer makers new rights to configure 
Windows as they see most fit for their customers, even if they end 
up including non-Microsoft software. Computer makers will also be 
free to remove the pathways by which consumers get to various 
features of Windows (like Explorer), and replace them with different 
paths for different programs. Having used Microsoft products at home 
and at work some of the products being demanded by competition 
through litigation are totally stupid wasted efforts as the market 
is nil.
    Obviously, Microsoft was and is willing to do what was necessary 
to bring this matter to a close, and the Department of Justice 
should follow suit, so to speak. The settlement should stand as it 
is and there should be no more litigation.
    Sincerely,
    John Anderson
    13526-118 Ave NE
    Kirkland, Washington 98034



MTC-00026921

From: Peter DeVries
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that the proposed Microsoft Settlement is not 
severe enough to adequately punish Microsoft for it's previous 
actions, nor does the recommended oversight prevent the company from 
continuing to abuse it's monopoly power to the detriment of US 
consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Peter DeVries
    Network Operations Manager
    UW-Madison Medical School
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00026922

From: Terry Stuart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a small business owner/operator and I have long been 
concerned about the Microsoft monopoly. I use their products daily, 
they work well and I am happy to pay for them, but I am afraid that 
they are getting a stronger and stronger stranglehold on the 
software market. They are a slippery bunch! I don't want to live 
with the consequences of their monopoly. I just learned about the 
work of Consumers for Computing Choice and support it 100%. Please 
incorporate these remedies in your final judgment regarding the 
company:
    (1) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run the 70,000 
existing Windows applications without modification on all other 
operating systems.
    (2) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native 
versions of Microsoft Office applications on all other operating 
systems.
    (3) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or 
more of the four Office applications with competing applications, 
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services 
with any Microsoft application.
    (4) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native 
versions of Explorer, Media Player and other Microsoft Internet 
applications on all other operating systems.
    (5) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or 
more Microsoft Internet applications with competing applications, 
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services 
with any Microsoft application.
    (6) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace any 
component or feature in any Microsoft software product with superior 
or special purpose components or features.
    (7) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run any Microsoft 
software on computers that do not have Intel-compatible 
microprocessors.
    (8) A simple, affordable, and reliable way for software 
developers to access all the information they need to create 
products that offer consumers these choices.
    (9) A way to ensure that original equipment manufacturers 
provide consumers with equal access to computers with alternative 
operating systems, productivity applications, and Internet 
applications.
    (10) A ``crown jewel'' provision establishing such 
serious consequences for non-compliance that Microsoft will not 
attempt to evade the necessary disclosure requirements and other 
mandates.
    Sincerely,
    Terry Stuart



MTC-00026923

From: iTypical Male
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a slap on the wrist joke. One of the few 
things Microsoft doesn't monopolize in is education. And weith the

[[Page 27894]]

proposed education settlement, it opens the door for them to. Isn't 
that just what you don't want to do?
    The settlement is a joke. Had it been a less powerful company, 
something more drastic would have occured. But it didn't. Do 
something real punish them.
    -William Done



MTC-00026924

From: Pantelic, Milan MD
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I will not recapitulate the arguments your have (no doubt) 
received to date on the inadequacy of the proposed Antitrust 
settlement with Microsoft--I would simply like to add my voice 
to the chorus.That Microsoft has indulged in anti-competitive 
business practices is of no doubt--shamelessly and 
unapologetically, at that.None of what has transpired has changed 
the corporate culture in which this behavior is ingrained. The 
illegal practices of which Microsoft has been deemed guilty are the 
merely the tip of the technological iceberg, as this company 
attempts to make every open standard its own by leveraging its 
monopolistic power and enormous financial resources.The current 
settlement proposal adequately addresses neither remediation nor 
punishment. Please do not allow Microsoft to evade the spirit of 
Justice by providing software and computers in lieu of a direct 
monetary penalty-- this has the effect of more firmly seating 
the hook in the mouth of their prey, not to mention giving them 
greater access into the educational market, one of the few arenas 
that they do not already dominate!I frankly doubt the adequacy of 
the settlement amount (even if paid in cash) to punish a company of 
Microsoft's size. To do it in the fashion proposed is simply to 
punish the fox by giving him the key to another henhouse.As a 
medical and computer professional who is interested in maintaining 
and fostering innovation, wide access and open standards, I deplore 
the conduct of this company and fear for the industry's future if 
this kind of behavior is not controlled.
    Milan V. Pantelic, MD
    Henry Ford Hospital
    2799 W Grand Blvd
    Detroit, MI 48202
    (313) 916-2825



MTC-00026926

From: Tom Peck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the settlement reached between the Dept. of 
Justice and Microsoft for the anti-trust case against Microsoft.
    This settlement allows Microsoft to continue its anti-
competitive practices. As shown in the trial, and upheld by several 
appeals, Microsoft has abused its monopoly to damage third party 
software developers. This abuse has affected not only those 
developers, but consumers as well, by limiting choice in the 
software market and allowing Microsoft to charge artificially 
inflated prices for their software.
    Specifically, the wording of the settlement allows Microsoft to 
continue its anti-competitive behavior against free, or open source, 
software. The careful wording of the settlement only requires 
Microsoft to disclose APIs to other businesses. A developer of a 
free or shareware application is excluded from this information.
    Microsoft should be required to divulge ALL information about 
their APIs to anyone who asks for it. This documentation could 
easily be put on Microsoft's web site at very little cost to 
Microsoft. An independent review panel would insure that information 
is updated in a timely fashion and that the information is correct.
    Thank you.



MTC-00026927

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposal.The proposed settlement is not in my 
interest. Deborah Hollings
    Columbia, South Carolina



MTC-00026928

From: Ken Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement of the US vs. 
Microsoft antitrust case.
    I believe that there are many significant failures in the 
proposed settlement.
    In general, I believe that it fails to 
--significantly-- punish Microsoft in any way. The 
Findings of Fact are clear, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that 
Microsoft is liable under Sherman Act 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.
    I do not believe the the proposed settlement makes sense in a 
such a situation. Microsoft was WRONG; Microsoft BROKE THE LAW, and 
therefore...Microsoft gets to negotiate terms they find acceptable?
    This flies in the face of justice.
    More specifically, I object to portions of section III, as they 
relate to API disclosure. Microsoft has already removed all business 
competitors (in some cases, using the aforementioned illegal 
tactics), leaving only volunteer projects and open-source software 
as viable alternatives. However Section III.J.2 would allow 
Microsoft to refuse to provide information due to failure to meet 
``reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business''.
    Open Source and Free Software is precisely NOT a business in and 
of itself, and could therefore easily be prevented by Microsoft from 
obtaining this information. However, these same Open Source and Free 
Software projects and volunteer groups are providing the best and 
most aggressive competition for Microsoft that exists presently.
    It would be tragic for the government to allow Microsoft to use 
this proposed ``remedy'' as a weapon against the sort of 
competition that it is supposed to enable.
    I appreciate your time in reviewing my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Ken Kennedy
    425 Lindbergh Dr NE, Unit D-2
    Atlanta, GA 30305
    404-262-6439



MTC-00026929

From: Kenneth Townsend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft through out the years has provided software and 
support for the business world. The competitors do not provide a 
product of equal value to the computing world. Please do not punnish 
a company for producing a superior product.
    Kenneth Townsend
    [email protected]



MTC-00026930

From: Carlton Thiele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
10148 Reagan Dairy Trail
Bradenton, FL 34212
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 take this opportunity to express my opinion 
about the antitrust settlement that has recently been made between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. Microsoft has agreed to 
terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures that were 
at issue in the suit, for the sake of wrapping up the issue. It is 
obvious that Microsoft has clone more than what was necessary on 
their part and the DOJ should follow suit. Not only has Microsoft 
provided businesses and homes with excellent products and service 
over the years they have also donated millions to charity and 
provided thousands of jobs. They should be allowed to continue on 
with business as usual.
    The terms that Microsoft has agreed to are more than fair, and 
all litigation against Microsoft should be put to a stop. Microsoft 
has agreed to design future versions of Windows, beginning with an 
interim release of Windows XP, to provide a mechanism to make it 
easy for computer makers, consumers and software developers to 
promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. In relation to this, 
Microsoft has also agreed not to retaliate against any designers and 
producers of software and hardware that competes with Windows.
    It is clear that this issue needs to come to a close. Not only 
are the litigations wasting millions in tax dollars, but also it is 
affecting the IT industry and the economy.

[[Page 27895]]

    Sincerely,
    Carlton Thiele



MTC-00026931

From: Howell, William (MD)
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsft Judgement
    Allowing Microsoft to link the IE browser to their OS and to 
enforce this with business practice pressure has undermined 
alternative browser development and stunted the growth of Java as a 
cross-platform language.
    Educational grants as the punishment for such behavour merely 
helps establish the monopoly more.
    I have just been informed by my ISP that my internet access by 
default will be via MSN.com.



MTC-00026932

From: Jerald Mara
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/27/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerald Mara
847 N. Jerico Dr.
Casselberry, FL 32707
January 27, 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,
    Jerry Mara



MTC-00026933

From: John Gibson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madames,
    I am writing to express my opposition to the Proposed Final 
Judgment (PFJ) for the Microsoft antitrust case. Not only is the PFJ 
far too weak, but it has no effective enforcement mechanism to 
assure Microsoft follows even its weak restrictions. Moreover, 
Microsoft has a well-documented history of creatively exploiting 
loopholes and prolonging litigation in order to continue its 
anticompetitive and illegal business practices. These practices have 
substantially harmed businesses and consumers. Unless a stronger and 
more strongly enforced settlement is reached, we can expect further 
harm and more litigation.
    The PFJ is too weak in too many ways to list here. Here are a 
few weaknesses that particularly concern me, as a independent 
software developer and a supporter of free or open-source software.
    (1) The PFJ defines terms such as ``API'', 
``Microsoft Middleware'', and ``Windows Operating 
System Product'' so narrowly that restrictions can be 
circumvented by changing distribution methods or product names (see 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html).
    (2) The PFJ allows Microsoft to continue anti-competitive 
practices against free and open-source software. Section III.J.2 
allows Microsoft to condition disclosure of documentation and APIs 
to third parties on its own interpretation of the 
``authenticity and viability'' of the third party's 
business. Microsoft's greatest current competitor is the Linux 
operating system, which is written by a loose coalition of 
independent software developers and owned by no single company. 
Microsoft would be free to determine that Linux is not a viable 
business and withhold technical information.
    (3) It does nothing to prevent Microsoft from using artificial 
incompatibilities and restrictive licensing to increase the barrier 
to entry for third-party operating systems that attempt API-
compatibility with Microsoft's operating systems.
    (4) It allows Microsoft to continue to withhold information 
about its file formats, although undocumented file formats form an 
important part of the Applications Barrier to Entry (Findings of 
Fact paragraphs 20 and 39).
    The PFJ's enforcement mechanism is also too weak. Only one of 
three members of the Technical Committee will be selected without 
Microsoft's influence. This is a absolutely shocking concession.
    A company with Microsoft's long history of ruthlessly illegal 
and anticompetitive behavior cannot be allowed to choose the 
policemen who watch over it. Further, the PFJ gives the Technical 
Committee no enforcement powers of its own. All disputes are passed 
on to the courts. But as this and other lawsuits have shown, the 
courts act far too slowly to deter Microsoft from illegal action.
    Consumers and business have suffered considerable harm through 
Microsoft's illegal maintenance of its monopoly. Microsoft has 
accumulated billions of dollars of consumers'' and business's 
money by hundreds of dollars for software whose marginal cost is 
tens of dollars, and whose development cost is negligible in 
comparison to those billions. Consider also, that open-source 
software companies offer similar, even superior software free of 
charge. Microsoft's software is widely viewed in the open-source 
community as buggy, unstable, and generally inferior. Microsoft's 
operating systems crash far more frequently than their alternatives. 
Microsoft's insecure programming methods are the basis for the 
majority of Internet viruses. Microsoft's unpublished file formats 
and the subsequent difficulty of transferring files to non-Microsoft 
software have caused countless people countless hours of 
frustration. Yet consumers and businesses are locked into 
Microsoft's software, due to a combination of economic 
``network effects'' and artificial barriers to entry 
supported by Microsoft's illegal, anticompetitive business 
practices.
    Microsoft has a stranglehold on both the computer operating 
system market and the office productivity software market. It has 
demonstrated repeatedly that it will do anything it takes, legal or 
illegal, to maintain its monopoly. Consumers and businesses have 
been harmed, substantially. The Court and the Justice Department 
simply must impose broader and more strongly enforceable 
restrictions on Microsoft, or the harm will continue and another 
lengthy suit will follow.
    John F. Gibson
    Researcher in fluid dynamics
    Independent developer of scientific software
    Tutor, St. John's College
    Santa Fe, NM 87505
    (505) 992-2935



MTC-00026934

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir:
    I would like to see that the Microsoft case finally comes to a 
conclusion which will preserve the foundations of a free society in 
its preservation of respect for property rights.
    Microsoft has always been of positive benefit to the consumer in 
enabling everyone to have access to his own PC, packaged with 
virtually all the needed software at a reasonable price. To find 
that Microsoft is undercutting the costs of its competitors is the 
problem of its competitors, it is not Microsoft's problem, and it is 
not a problem for the consumer. It is because of Microsoft that the 
PC has become an indispensable addition to my home; I do not owe any 
thanks to it's competitors for Microsoft's accomplishments.
    I do not want the government interfering in my ability to choose 
what software I run on my PC. If other companies have a beneficial 
product, let them compete for my business in the marketplace, and 
not seek special privileges from government by trying to invoke the 
gross ambiguities inherent in the antitrust laws. When politicians 
protect some businesses from others they engage in a dangerous 
policy. Continued application of the antitrust laws against 
successful businessmen can only lead to corruption and economic 
disaster as shown in many other countries. I want a free America 
where anyone with enough intelligence and hard work can be a self-
made man like Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates. This is the only way 
everyone can benefit, including the

[[Page 27896]]

competitors of Microsoft, who now are able to compete in a market 
that did not exist before. The only way that this country can remain 
free is to fully recognize and protect the principle of property 
rights inherent in constitutionally guaranteed individual rights.
    Sincerely,
    Henry Solomon
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026935

From: Diane Swan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lawrence Swan
17517 Osprey Road
Arlington, WA 98223
January 23, 2002
Attorney Generai John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to write and express my support of the recent 
settlement that has been reached between Microsoft ant the 
Department of Justice. This lawsuit has occupied the attention of 
the courts and the IT industry for far too long. If the federal 
government intended to produce consumer benefit with this suit, the 
matter should have been resolved long ago.
    Due to the proposed settlement, Microsoft will be forced to 
renounce intellectual property rights to parties who feel they need 
access to Microsoft's products in order to produce their own. Along 
with that, Microsoft will be forced to use a uniform pricelist that 
will certainly decrease Microsoft's profitability for years to come. 
These and many other terms of the settlement more than compensate 
all the plaintiffs in the suit.
    Since the current settlement provides compensation, deserved or 
no, to all the parties in the suit, the proposed settlement must be 
made formal. Those who would see the suit reopened for litigation 
only want to strip Microsoft of more money and market power for 
their own selfish gain. The Justice Department must see that the 
proposed settlement becomes formal as soon as legally possible.
    Sincerely,
    Larry Swan



MTC-00026936

From: Jeff Chapin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am an average home consumer of Microsoft products, and I do 
not believe that I have been victimized by Microsoft in any way. I 
like Microsoft products and they have only been a positive and 
useful tool for me and my computing needs. I have found Microsoft to 
be very innovative and progressive in the last decade. They have 
been at the leading edge of technology and bringing this technology 
to consumers at very reasonable prices. Furthermore, I feel that I 
have the ability to choose what software I like and companies are 
always willing to listen to their customers. I feel that this 
antitrust case is completely bogus. It has been propagated by 
Microsoft competitors and power-hungry politicians.
    Microsoft has been unfairly and wrongly taken over by the 
government at the request of its competitors.
    The antitrust case and in fact the antitrust laws in general are 
statist and immoral. Microsoft has a right to its property, which 
the government should not be able to take away at its whim. 
Microsoft has become the leader in the software industry through 
superior products and fair capitalism. This case has put our country 
on a dangerous course of more government control over our economy 
and our individual lives.
    The shareholders of Microsoft have a right to their company and 
antitrust is nothing short of theft.
    Jeff Chapin
    Hutchinson, KS



MTC-00026937

From: Kathy Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Re: Revised proposed Final Judgment, United States v. Microsoft
    Sirs:
    I have reviewed the proposed Final Judgment referenced above and 
I beg the court not to accept it. This proposed settlement is so 
severely flawed that it would be contrary to the public interest.
    Microsoft has been found by the Court to be a monopoly that has 
abused its monopoly powers by engaging in anticompetitive practices.
    This has had several effects on end users such as myself: (1) 
Many of Microsoft's products are priced out of reach of many users; 
they have a long history of buying out competitors and discontinuing 
the competing products, so they can charge any amount they like. (2) 
When they are unable to buy out a competitor, Microsoft provides a 
competing product free with the Windows operating system until the 
competitor is forced out of business or relegated to marginal 
status.
    Examples include Outlook Express, which is a seriously inferior 
product and violates many Internet standards--but it is used by 
more people than any other mail or news client because it is 
preinstalled when a computer is purchased, and Internet 
Explorer--integrated into the Windows operating system. (3) 
Because of Microsoft's devious and unfair practices making it 
impossible for competitors to access and use Windows API's, authors 
of other middleware products are unable to compete with Microsoft 
and so their products may never become available for for people like 
me to purchase. (4) OEM licenses have forced providers of hardware 
to discourage competing operating systems or prevented hardware 
providers entirely from offering bundles which include competing 
products or hardware which has no operating system preinstalled. (5) 
Large users with ``site'' licences are forced to pay 
licensing fees for every piece of hardware capable of running 
Windows, whether or not the hardware actually does have Windows 
installed. (6) Microsoft software which has been distributed in 
furtherance of their abusive monopoly is notoriously insecure and 
susceptible to malicious worms, viruses, and trojans which directly 
adversely affect those whose systems become infected and indirectly 
adversely affects all of us who have Internet connections when we 
receive dozens or hundreds of copies of virii propagated by MS 
software or our Internet Service Provider's mail servers or routers 
crash under the impact of the thousands of copies passing through 
them.
    It appears to me that because of the unreasonably restrictive 
terms of the agreement and definitions in the proposed Final 
Judgment, Microsoft's monopoly position and ability to use the 
monopoly to unfairly discourage competition will actually be 
strengthened rather than remedied. Additionally, the wording in 
Section III.B will still allow Microsoft to ``punish'' 
some OEM's who fail to ``play ball'' with Microsoft by 
offering special prices and discounts to all others.
    My interest in the Microsoft Settlement: I am a United States 
Citizen, 54 years of age, residing in Tok, Alaska. I am an end user 
who is affected by the outcome of this case purely as a person who 
buys and uses computers. I am not employed by any computer hardware 
or software company or individual and as far as I know I am not 
related to any hardware or software companies or individuals.
    Sincerely yours,
    Kathy I. Morgan
    Box 342
    Tok, AK 99780-0342



MTC-00026938

From: Wayne Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not think the Microsoft monopoly or the purposed settlement 
are in the consumer's best interest.



MTC-00026939

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
2142Blake Boulevard SE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52403-2824
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC? 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing toexpress my views regarding the Microsoft 
antitrust case.? I have always felt that this entire suit haswasted 
far too much taxpayer funds.? Ialso believe that the company has 
been treated unfairly in this case, as theyare only guilty of acting 
in the true spirit of free enterprise.? As far as I am concerned, 
Microsoft has done what all ambitious companies should strive to 
do--create a well-needed product,use unsurpassed marketing 
strategies to sell the product, and make aprofit.? No one can argue 
thatMicrosoft's extraordinary strides haven???t changed the IT 
industry forever.

[[Page 27897]]

    In their efforts tocome to agreement with an aggressive 
government and get on with steadyproduction, Microsoft has conceded 
far beyond obligations that fairness requiredof them.? They have 
compromised theircompetitiveness by agreeing to grant their 
competitors access to internalWindows code, protocols and codes.? 
Theyhave even agreed to have their compliance monitored by an 
external oversightcommittee. All these attempts onMicrosoft's part 
are sure to prevent future antitrust violations.? I believe it is a 
very well organizedagreement and everything should be done to 
formalize it as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Thom Lusardi



MTC-00026940

From: Webmaster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    I am writing to you as someone who has been involved in 
computers for the past 25 years, grew up near Microsoft, and have 
been on both sides of the love ``em or hate ``em Microsoft 
fence. I would like to give you my observations and comments about 
the computer industry as it relates to the Microsoft case.
    A Brief History of the Personal Computer (circa 1980 to 1995) 
Circa 1980, the personal computer was born, and within a few years, 
the PC's killer applications (namely spreadsheets, word processors, 
and presentation graphics programs) made the PC an indispensable 
business tool. Innovation and competition were strong and consumers 
benefited from new products such as Lotus 123, Word Perfect, and 
Harvard Graphics.
    Over the years, Microsoft also innovated and introduced refined 
versions of its DOS and Windows operating systems. By the mid- to 
late 1980s, IBM had finally lost its dominance of the open hardware 
platform it created. The failure of the more-closed PS/2 and the 
further advances of PC ``clones'' drove prices down while 
driving hardware innovation and performance. The proliferation of 
low cost personal computers drove the further adoption of Microsoft 
operating systems.
    During the early 1990s, Microsoft, funded by its operating 
systems success, also delivered innovative and superior products 
such as Excel and Word. These products rightfully claimed market 
dominance over their competitors. These products also became strong 
revenue producers for Microsoft. Through widespread adoption of 
Microsoft operating systems, consumers benefited, and developers 
were overjoyed.
    Microsoft further created excellent developers'' tools and 
wooed developers to create applications for Windows.
    The Personal Computer Matures (circa 1995) Unfortunately, 
towards the mid-1990s, the PC market was becoming mature. The 
personal computer had run its course, and networked, not personal, 
computers were the new frontier. Microsoft and other personal 
computer software vendors turned to competing in feature wars by 
adding features that were largely useless to the majority of users 
and by driving a new software business model: the upgrade cycle.
    Prior to this time, innovation in the personal computer industry 
was high and product quality was excellent. I remember when a bug in 
software made headlines and was truly an embarrassment to the 
company that wrote the software. Prior to this time, new major 
releases were truly valuable and, because of attention to quality, 
customers quickly adopted the latest technology.
    Subsequent releases of personal computer software generally 
offered only minor functional improvements while adding substantial 
incompatibilities and instability through buggy software. Often 
upgrades were mostly bug fixes. Software incompatibilities with 
hardware, however, drove hardware sales that had now become 
dependent on software upgrade cycles. Many in these industries 
became staunch supporters of Microsoft because their livelihood 
depended on it.
    It is considered by some that post Windows 95 OSR2, the Windows 
98, Windows 98 SE, and Windows Me operating systems were 
progressively worse releases. Certainly corporate America began to 
shy away from these frequent and ``problem-full'' upgrade 
cycles. Software manufacturers, Microsoft in particular, faced with 
spiraling support costs resulting from product deficiencies and poor 
quality, began charging customers for support. This further 
alienated customers who had become dependent on the technology.
    In the mid-1990s, while working with software developers, I 
learned Microsoft had a new trick in addition to upgrade cycles. 
Because of Microsoft's dominance of the personal computer operating 
system, it began dangling new over-hyped technologies to developers 
but withholding adequate information to get the programming done. To 
that end, Microsoft would supply expensive consultants. Through the 
use of consultants, Microsoft could control who had access to what 
technology. Microsoft seemed to provide consultants to companies 
developing products that further enhanced the appeal of the 
``Microsoft platform''. Unfortunately, I learned first-
hand that once Microsoft deemed your software was no longer 
strategic or was competitive, the support vanished. The same 
strategy also applied to hardware.
    Originally, Windows NT ran on Intel, DEC Alpha, MIPS, and 
PowerPC platforms. Once Microsoft pulled the plug on support for the 
non-Intel platforms, these other platforms vanished almost 
overnight.
    Around this time, it was also widely known that Microsoft 
employed an ``embrace and extend'' philosophy. The 
implementation goes something like this: Once a new non-Microsoft 
technology emerges, Microsoft discredits the technology and 
withholds operating system support.
    This minimizes the revenue that a potential competitor could 
derive in the early stages of a product's life that could be used to 
fund additional development. Meanwhile, Microsoft had a chance to 
study and subsequently implement competing and typically inferior 
technology into its operating system. At times, by only announcing 
that Microsoft will develop a competing technology, Microsoft could 
convince its customers to abandon the new non-Microsoft technology 
or, at least, sit-and-wait until it was built-in for 
``free''. The pattern generally continued by starving the 
original innovating companies while developing its own technology. 
Typically, by a 3.x release, Microsoft had monopolized the 
technology while the original innovators had gone out of business.
    What was happening to hardware and software developers was that 
they were learning a message from Microsoft that was loud and clear. 
The message was that if you were not strategic to Microsoft, you 
were ``history''.
    The Networked Computer Industry (circa 1995 to Present) 
Fortunately, for consumers and developers, the need to transcend the 
``personal'' in PC and become networked exploded with the 
adoption of the Internet. There was incredible excitement and 
innovation as numerous companies worked around the clock to develop 
new products, services, and applications. HTTP, HTML, and Java were 
the tools to break the industry free. There was a big problem with 
the Internet to Microsoft because it didn't use Microsoft technology 
and, further, it could minimize the importance of the Microsoft 
Windows operating system.
    Once again, Microsoft attempted to discredit the technology 
while buying itself time to determine how to best ``embrace and 
extend'' the technology. I do admire Microsoft in its ability 
to turn its entire company around in ``Internet time'' to 
address this great threat.
    Unfortunately, this has been to the detriment of consumers and 
the Internet as Microsoft is trying and succeeding at crafting its 
own version of the Internet.
    There are numerous examples of this strategy. As far back as 
Stacker vs. DoubleSpace, to QuickTime vs. AVI, MP3 vs. WMA, 
RealPlayer vs. WMA, Java vs. MSJava vs. C#, JavaScript vs. 
JScript, and more.
    Microsoft has sought to pollute every interoperable and de facto 
standard with it's own ``embrace and extend'' but 
incompatible version.
    In the ease of Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer, 
Microsoft claims its dominance is due to Internet Explorer being a 
better browser. It, in fact, is a better browser--on Microsoft 
Windows.
    However, this is clearly because any company is unable to 
compete with a Goliath company that gives the product away for free 
(far below its cost).
    I remember sitting in Microsoft briefings while they insisted 
that they were ``browser agnostic''. The audience 
snickered as surely they were browser agnostic as long as the 
browser was a Microsoft browser.
    Microsoft even feigned cross-platform support by offering a Unix 
version of Internet Explorer that never worked and which has been 
subsequently dropped. Now that Microsoft owns the browser, there is 
no need to support other platforms. It is quite a disconcerting that 
the fate of Apple rests upon Microsoft's willingness to supply it 
Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer. Without these core 
applications, no desktop operating system could survive.

[[Page 27898]]

    My Views on What Needs to Change
    What has happened is that the technologies Microsoft has added 
to its operating systems have not been for ``free'', as 
Microsoft would like us to believe. They have come at a high price 
of stamping out non-Microsoft developer innovations. They have come 
at a price of security and reliability, as there is really no other 
choice for corporate America. They have come at a price of 
Microsoft-ifying the Internet and attempting to replace every open 
and interoperable standard that the rest of the world has tried to 
create. Microsoft continues by trying to force its dominance into 
product areas of hand-held computers, video games, entertainment, 
and Internet service.
    A recent example is the announcement of MSN as the number one 
search engine. It is actually not surprising, as MSN is the default 
search tool in Internet Explorer.
    The sad reality is that Microsoft already owns the desktop, the 
corporate office suite, and the web browser. It has purposely 
integrated the browser into the operating system so that it loads 
faster and is more difficult to remove. Microsoft has also tied its 
desktop and server operating systems together with almost identical 
code-bases. I think it is quite dangerous that Microsoft is trying 
to tie its Windows desktops to its Windows servers to displace other 
more reliable, open, and secure server operating systems from 
competitors. Microsoft is trying to unfairly force itself into the 
server market by way of the desktop. At the same time, Microsoft is 
trying to create its own version of the Internet as well as force 
users to use its Passport service.
    In the early 1990s, I was an adamant Microsoft fan. 
Unfortunately, their patterns of behavior towards outside innovators 
and of tying numerous Microsoft products together have changed the 
way I make choices. More and more, I choose open solutions whenever 
possible even though I know there is a threat that Microsoft may 
eventually kill them. A prime driver of the current downturn in the 
computer industry, I believe, is the lack of innovation. I am quite 
confident that a plethora of reliable and secure multimedia (audio, 
video, photography, speech), networking (collaboration, 
communication, interactive, wireless), and business applications are 
possible and awaiting development. The unfortunate reality is that 
Microsoft holds the keys to the client operating systems that these 
applications need. At this late point, I'm not sure what type of 
settlement/remedy would be appropriate. Microsoft has already cost 
the technology industry (including Netscape) irreparable harm and 
continues to further cripple it to serve its own agenda. At the 
beginning of the antitrust cases, I thought it might be reasonable 
to break Microsoft into 3 separate companies: Desktop OS, 
Applications, and Server OS. The reason for splitting out the Server 
OS would be to prevent Microsoft from unfairly tying Windows clients 
to Windows servers. Unfortunately, the code-base is the same, so 
perhaps only strict conduct remedies might work. Internet Explorer 
must be considered an application and stripped from the operating 
system. Further, it must be made available in fully functioning form 
across major operating systems (Windows, Mac, Unix, Linux). To do 
this, it must be stripped of its Windows-specific technologies and 
implemented in a truly cross-platform manner such as the Mozilla/
Gecko/Netscape product. It must conform to open and not proprietary 
standards. The same exact requirement also needs to be made of 
Microsoft Office. These applications are critical to the functioning 
of American businesses and should be regulated like a utility.
    Another sad reality is that Microsoft developers and personnel 
are ``soMicrosoft'', in general, they do not understand 
other and outside open technologies. Assuming Microsoft was split, 
it would take years for personnel to retrain themselves to 
understand non-Microsoft technologies and to begin developing 
products that conform to open standards. Because there is such a 
closed--almost incestuous--Microsoft culture, the separate 
companies should be geographically dispersed to prevent inevitable 
commingling. Although such as break-up would cause tremendous 
anxiety in the industry, I think it is necessary in order to give 
other operating systems a fighting chance and to convince the non-
Microsoft development community that it is safe to innovate once 
again.
    I would estimate the disruption could last 2 to 4 years. The 
current prospects, however, are continued stagnation, meaningless 
upgrade cycles, poor reliability and security, and less choices as 
Microsoft continues to take over all aspects of computing, 
networking, entertainment, and identity/payment systems. Considering 
I originally wrote this on a Windows NT (1995) machine with Word 97, 
I would be willing to use Windows2000 and other current software 
versions for a few years in the hopes of gaining truly open 
computing platforms and radically new and innovative products in the 
future.
    Finally, please compare the personal computer software and 
hardware industries over the past 5 to 10 years. Despite a dominant, 
but somewhat less adversarial, Intel, the hardware industry has 
delivered products that are many, many times over faster, more 
reliable, and more functional at fractions of the price of what they 
used to cost. A modern PC can be bought for $500 that includes a 
monitor and printer and is better than most corporate desktops. On 
the other hand, new non-upgrade versions of Microsoft's latest 
Windows XP Professional and Office XP will cost you more than the 
hardware. This is truly ironic considering there are no real 
manufacturing costs to the software and considering the marginal 
benefits provided to consumers by the marginal softare upgrades 
during the same period.
    Best of luck. We are counting on you,
    Brett Duke



MTC-00026941

From: Art Holland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Microsoft was the first to exploit if not realize that the PC 
business was like any other modern business that depends on 
interoperability--he who can establish and control the 
standards will become a very profitable monopoly. Just like roads, 
telephones and many others--the business of computers is about 
having them interoperate--whether on networks or through 
packaged software.
    Microsoft has gained this leverage through control of the API's 
and file formats combined with some very unsavory business tactics. 
The result is that people need Windows and they need Office. To 
choose anything else is to make significant compromises in one's 
ability to interact with others.
    MS has exploited this, protected it and been convicted of 
illegally maintaining it and lost on appeal. This monopoly is 
stifling progress. Why would investors attack a monopoly? It's 
financial suicide.
    Remedy:

Fine them billions for breaking the law
 Openly publish API's and file formats subject to the satisfaction 
of an independent board.
 Make available a version of Windows that contains no applications 
(the things people actually buy computers for) at 1/2 the price of 
any other version.
    Thanks.
    Sincerely,
    Art Holland



MTC-00026942

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
1900 53rd Street N
 Saint Petersburg, FL 33710
 January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write to you today to show my support for the recent 
settlement reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. 
Bill Gates has been an integral part of the building of this nation 
and for that matter the world's computing abilities. He has been 
ingenious in the running of his company. I do not believe that the 
federal government should punish this ingenuity. I do not believe 
that the federal government has the right to persecute Microsoft. 
Given these sentiments, I am pleased that there may finally be some 
closure with this issue. Microsoft has been making many concessions 
to ensure that this occurs. For example, Microsoft will share 
information about the internal workings of Windows with its 
competitors, and thus allow them to place their own programs on the 
operating system. Microsoft has even agreed to the formation of a 
technical review board whose sole job will be to ensure compliance 
with the terms of the settlement.

[[Page 27899]]

    The settlement offers an opportunity to end this lawsuit and 
returns the country's focus back on business, where it belongs. The 
federal government must end its pursuit of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
Edward Bailey 

MTC--00026942--0003



MTC-00026943

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Why don't you leave Microsoft alone for everything you become 
involved in you Screw it up. Attorneys are screwing this country to 
Hell and back and Greed is all They care about.
    Ken Stewart



MTC-00026944

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:08pm
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,
    Dorothy Sanford
    Assembly Drive
    Cartersville, GA 30120



MTC-00026945

From: Matthew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    The proposed settlement is unacceptable and gives Microsoft even 
further headway into a market where Apple Computer, Inc. was 
previously the leader.
    Please do not let this pass. 
    Matthew



MTC-00026946

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the Microsoft Settlement is not in my interest for 
countless reasons.
    Rebecca Bell
    Jekyll Island, GA 31527



MTC-00026947

From: Ken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust 
case and I believe that it does not adequately prevent Microsoft 
from abusing its monopoly power as a lever to gain new monopolies, 
destroy U.S. businesses, and ultimately to milk consumers for 
unnecessary, insecure, and unwanted ``features''. The 
settlement must be toughened and made bulletproof, but with the same 
speed that this one was cooked up.
    There are bigger loopholes in this proposal than in previous 
agreements with Microsoft, which they subsequently defied with 
impunity. Redefining words like ``browser'' and renaming 
products like ``Windows 95'' instead of ``DOS 7 + 
Windows 4.0'' is the level of deceipt that they would use to 
break this agreement as well. They are on the verge of relabeling MS 
Office as a ``subscription service''.
    Ken Conrad
    Dayton, Ohio



MTC-00026948

From: Oscar A. White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft hearings
    To whom it may concern,
    I believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft should go 
forward as agreed upon. The competition should leave them alone, if 
they, the competition can do a better job of developing software 
then they should get on with it. Leave the people alone who have 
proven they have the smarts and resourses to do the job!
    Sincerely,
    Oscar A. White



MTC-00026949

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lisa Luo
01-28-01
    The only reason that the U.S. versus Microsoft case came about 
is because of the word, ???success???. Because of Microsoft???s 
great dominance in the computer world, many competitors are 
expectedly intended to cripple the company. In some ways, Microsoft 
is expected to be charged since they had ???destroyed competition in 
the market for Internet browsers???, according to a federal trial 
court. Microsoft actions??? such as ???delivering a web browser with 
its Windows software packages??? undermines many companies such as 
Netscape???s monopoly power. If two similar products are placed 
before me and one of them was packaged with an extra item, I would 
grab for that product. Who wouldn???t want free items?! 
Microsoft???s fault of continuous prosper should be controlled to 
prevent serious consequences.
    In this technological advancing world, many competitors of the 
economy strive to dominate all by having the best of the best. I 
think the limits of Microsoft???s conduct from the revised proposed 
final judgment is very suitable to prevent a single dominance and to 
have a world of equal attempts to gain and profit. Microsoft should 
be controlled so there wouldn???t be an ultimate consequence of 
???misuse [in] its operating system monopoly to artificially exclude 
browser competition and deprive customers of a free choice between 
browsers???. Microsoft should also, ???allow applications to run in 
multiple operating systems???, so competition would revive. Leaving 
some space for other companies to strive in some way will provide 
everyone with ???economic freedom???.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00026950

From: Steven L. Mading
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing as a concerned citizen employing my rights under 
the Tunney Act, which state that the proposed Microsoft Settlement 
with the Department Of Justice must allow for a period of public 
comment. This message is my public comment.
    In short, I think the proposed settlement is inadequete to 
remedy the situation.
    Rather than give a list of reasons, which would be repetative 
with lists in other people's letters, I will simply expand on one 
point I find partiularly important: Microsoft Office dominance:
    The proposed remedy of forcing Microsoft to publish their 
program calls (or ``API'') because they have become de-
facto standards doesn't address the other more important de-facto 
standard over which they enjoy control--namely the file formats 
they use for saving Office documents in programs such as Word and 
Excel. Because compatability with Microsoft Office applications has 
become a neccessity with their monopoly position, if Microsoft can 
continue to hide the format of these files, they can continue to 
deny competing products entry into the marketplace. Many aspects of 
modern life, for good or bad, have come to depend on Word(tm) 
documents as the standard form of business interchange. There are 
even many Human Resources departments in large companies that will 
only take electronic resumes in Microsoft Word format and no other. 
It should be obvious that there are monopolistic influences at work 
when to look for a job, you must own a product from one specific 
company and no other. Certain government offices also dissemate 
public information in Microsoft Word(tm) format.
    Now, I feel the ideal remedy would be to educate people on how 
they are helping prop up the monopoly situation every time they 
choose to only accept input in Microsoft Word format and no 
other--but such a remedy isn't ever going to occur. In a free 
market, monopolies don't Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). 
UW-Madison Programmer/Analyst/(sometimes SysAdmin) 
mailto:[email protected] B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 
Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544



MTC-00026951

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:20pm

[[Page 27900]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am AGAINST the proposed settlement of the antitrust case 
involving Microsoft Corporation. Companies that achieve great levels 
of success as measured by revenues, profits, market share, etc. by 
producing innovative products, better quality, lower price, etc. in 
a totally legal and ethical manner should not be penalized just 
because they are successful. Unfortunately, too many people and 
government bureaucrats automatically regard success in the private 
sector as indicators of illegality, and I am usually against the 
Department of Justice pursuing antitrust cases.
    However, Microsoft has clearly achieved its stature via deceit 
and other illicit means, as demonstrated during the court 
proceedings in this antitrust case as well as other litigation such 
as Sun Microsystems vs. Microsoft regarding Java. Some of the issues 
that stand out in my mind are:
    Microsoft's ``embrace and extend'' approach in 
developing its own versions of products: Notice that a possible tool 
from another vendor has potentially significant popularity in the 
market and would consequently enhance the overall market for PCs and 
the Microsoft Windows operating system. Offer support to that vendor 
to help their product be successful. Once Microsoft sees the 
unexpectedly high success of the product, begin developing a similar 
product, merge it in with the Windows operating system so that 
people can easily transition, then extend the new product by adding 
features incompatible with the original, more popular product. 
Arrange with PC vendors restrictive licensing agreements that 
prevent them from selling PCs with both Microsoft and non-Microsoft 
products. The result is that the former supporter stabs the original 
vendor in the back. Such has happened with Netscape and was in 
progress with Java until Sun Microsystems successfully litigated. 
There is a new browser available from the open-source/free-software 
community (which Microsoft hates) called Opera; Opera could not 
access many of the Microsoft web pages because they were designed 
for Internet Explorer by using extensions to commercial standards 
that only Internet Explorer recognizes, and yet Microsoft falsely 
claimed that it was Opera that violated the standards (the Opera 
developer is a member of the standards committee and pointed out 
where Microsoft's web pages violated the prescribed standard).
    Microsoft repeatedly gave self-contradictory testimony at the 
trial. Much of their testimony was demonstrated totally fallacious 
by experts for the Department of Justice. Microsoft cannot be 
trusted to come close to telling the truth under oath. Microsoft 
needs to be put in a position that it is impossible for them to 
break the final settlement when they are not under oath.
    Microsoft has the lion's share of the very large PC operating 
system market, and they can change Windows whenever they wish, which 
can end up deliberately creating incompatibilities with other 
vendors'' application tools running in the Windows environment, 
whereas the application tools departments in Microsoft are informed 
of the changes in Windows and can accommodate. This results in 
Microsoft having an unfair advantage in developing applications 
tools when they control the dominant operating system. One can quite 
reasonably ask why the other vendors do not get into the operating 
systems business, competing head to head against Microsoft, and take 
control of their own destiny. The problem is that most of the 
companies producing applications tools are small and require all 
their resources to go into the development of the specific tool. 
Operating systems are far more complicated pieces of software taking 
many years to develop. The only operating system offering Microsoft 
Windows any substantive competition at all is Linux (which Microsoft 
wishes to kill also), and Linux has been in development ten years 
now with some significant work still left. This is why the industry 
desperately needs Microsoft split between its Windows operation and 
its application tools operation.
    Microsoft shows its true colors by seeking legislation to outlaw 
the use in government-funded activities of software developed under 
the GNU Public License, including Linux. Such software might 
actually succeed where no other has: provide meaningful competition 
and take significant market share from Microsoft.
    The findings of fact regarding Microsoft's adverse monopolistic 
behavior have held firm in the courts--for good reason. The 
proposed settlement does nothing to redress past wrongs nor does it 
put adequate teeth into preventing future misdeeds of similar ilk. I 
have been a professional software developer for a variety of 
applications for almost 30 years and an adjunct professor in 
electrical engineering and computer science for 15 years. I have 
used both Microsoft and non-Microsoft products during that time, as 
well as followed the actual technology involved.
    Please take these issues into account and rule in a manner so 
that vendors besides Microsoft have the opportunity to play a 
significant, successful, innovative role in the software 
marketplace. I regard the original ruling of splitting Microsoft 
into an operating system company and a totally separate application 
tools company to be very wise and appropriate. The proposed 
settlement is not.
    Howard W. LUDWIG, Ph.D.
    11666 Darlington Drive
    Orlando FL 32837



MTC-00026952

From: Herman Choper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement will have a very positive impact on the American 
economy and will help pull us from the recession we have experienced 
over the past year.
    The Senior Citizens are the ones that are suffering the most 
from this recession.
    Thank you for taking the time to hear from us.
    Herman Choper
    [email protected]



MTC-00026953

From: John Springer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose any settlement with Microsoft that does not make these 
provisions:
    1. Penalize them for putting other companies out of business by 
bundling ``good enough'' software with Windows and Office, 
thereby destroying existing markets.
    2. Prevent them from effectively forcing proprietary standards 
onto the world by building them into Windows, ignoring standards 
organizations, and not publishing specifications.
    I think Microsoft is being allowed to dominate and control an 
industry that is as essential today as the telephone is. It is as 
though AT&T 50 years ago had been allowed to build phone systems 
that wouldn't let customers talk to anyone using non AT&T 
equipment.
    John Springer
    Portland, OR
    Golly--I think it's raining out there.



MTC-00026954

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to take a moment to express my displeasure with the 
currently proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti-trust Lawsuit. 
My understanding of the settlement is that Microsoft is to give 
copies of it's Operating System and software to schools, etc. This 
whole issue was brought about by Microsoft's manipulations to get 
their software on as many computers as possible. The proposed 
settlement would merely extend the current issue into schools 
without rectifying the original issue.
    While I don't like punitive actions, I believe that a solution 
that is more inline with solving the original issue is warranted 
here. Personally, I think a settlement that creates more competition 
within the Operating System software industry would be the best 
solution. Possibly a settlement that would require MS to supply 
schools with computers with an alternative Operating System such as 
Linux or the Macintosh Operating System.
    Thanks for your kind attention.
    Derek Tarvin



MTC-00026955

From: Dave Kopel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am writing this letter to express my support for the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. In contrast to the alternatives proposed by 
the non-settling states and by the companies which have used this 
lawsuit as a means of harassing Microsoft, the proposed settlement 
is reasonably based on the decision of the Court of Appeals.
    In my book ``Antitrust after Microsoft,'' I argue that 
one of the central flaws of antitrust law is its erratic and 
unpredictable application. Another flaw is how often companies are 
targeted as a result of politics and lobbying. The Microsoft case 
was an

[[Page 27901]]

egregious example of both. Settling the case would not only be good 
for the American economy, it would be a constructive step forward 
for the rule of law.
    Sincerely,
    David B. Kopel
    Director, Center on the Digital Economy
    Heartland Institute.
    Research Director,
    Independence Institute



MTC-00026956

From: Ken Arromdee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional and PhD in computer science, I'm 
writing to express my concern about the revised proposed Final 
Judgment in the US vs. Microsoft case.
    I'm particularly concerned as a user of the Linux operating 
system. Linux may be the most viable competitor to Windows right 
now, and any settlement should prevent anticompetitive actions 
towards Linux. I'm disturbed, however, by the loopholes in the 
settlement, both with respect to competition with other operating 
systems in general, and specifically in connection with Linux.

--In section III.a.2, Microsoft is prohibited from retaliating 
against OEMs who include both Windows and another OS on their 
computers. However, the prohibition doesn't include computers 
shipped with *only* a competing OS. The prohibition should be 
extended to include such computers.
--Section III.d requires that Microsoft disclose information to 
ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs about middleware APIs. Section 
III.e requires similar disclosure of communications protocol, and 
section III.i requires that Microsoft licenses any associated 
intellectual property. These seemingly reasonable clauses would 
exclude Linux:

    () The reference to ISVs (independent software vendors) would at 
first seem to let the information be used with Linux. However, Linux 
is written by volunteers; it's not clear whether the term 
``ISV'' would include a typical Linux developer.
    () According to section III.i.3, Microsoft can prohibit 
sublicensing or transfer of intellectual property rights. The Linux 
kernel and many other parts of Linux are written under a license 
(GNU General Public License) which requires that the licensed 
program be freely modifiable and distributable. Prohibitions on 
sublicensing/transfer would violate the GPL, preventing Linux from 
using the information.
    () Royalties for licensing the information must be 
``reasonable and non-discriminatory''. Since typical Linux 
developers are volunteers who don't profit from their code, any 
``reasonable and non- discriminatory'' fee greater than 
zero would make it impractical to use the information with Linux. 
Some types of ``reasonable and nondiscriminatory'' terms 
may be even worse; for instance, since Linux may be freely copied, a 
per-copy fee paid by the developer would impose a potentially 
infinite cost.
    () Section III.j.2 permits Microsoft to disclose the information 
only if the user has a reasonable business need, which wouldn't 
apply to a Linux developer writing code as a volunteer project. It 
also lets Microsoft require a third-party compliance test at the 
user's expense, which is inappropriate for a volunteer making no 
profit.
    () The information can only be used for interoperation with a 
``Windows Operating System Product''. This prohibits many 
reasonable uses, such as making a non-Windows operating system able 
to run Windows programs. Also, if the use of the information is 
restricted, it may be difficult or impossible for a programmer who 
has seen the information to ever work on Linux, since he would never 
be able to prove that he isn't using information in a prohibited 
way.
    This problem with the Judgment can only be fixed by not allowing 
restrictions on distribution or use of the information.
--Microsoft is not required to release information about file 
formats, such as in Microsoft Word, and Word is not included in the 
definition of middleware.
--The definition of ``middleware'' is tied to the 
specific version numbers used, allowing Microsoft to easily get 
around the judgment simply by changing its numbering scheme.
--The exemption in III.j.1 for technology necessary for anti-
piracy, licensing, and authorization is a very big loophole. For 
instance, Microsoft could create middleware that only runs 
applications that have been digitally signed by Microsoft, and then 
not tell third parties how to create signed applications, allowing 
Microsoft to control which applications are run.
--The proposal should also prohibit anti-competitive licenses. 
Many Microsoft products contain clauses that prohibit running them 
on non-Windows operating systems. Some specificallyt mention open-
source software (which includes Linux). For instance, Microsoft's 
Mobile Internet Toolkit's EULA contains a prohibition on not using 
``Potentially Viral Software'' (defined as to include open 
source) tools to develop software that uses the kit.
--The proposal should prohibit Microsoft from requiring that 
licensees not publically discuss the product, the license, and/or 
the license terms.

    Kenneth Arromdee
    January 27, 2002



MTC-00026957

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to settle. It will have a very positive impact on the 
present economy and it will help in pulling us out of the recession 
we have experienced over the past year.
    Paul trepanier
    Fairport, NY



MTC-00026958

From: Daniel Haun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. The proposed final judgement, as written, is 
vague and full of loopholes. It claims to address the serious issues 
raised against Microsoft, but is worded in such a way that it would 
have no significant effect. Please do not adopt the judgement in its 
current form. Daniel Haun
    Network Support Analyst
    Adventist Health
    2100 Douglas Blvd.
    Roseville, CA 95661



MTC-00026959

From: Jack Rodgers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Has anyone consider the possiblity that Microsoft is forcing 
peripheral manufactures such as recording devices, cell phone cards, 
MPG3 players, etc. to ONLY SUPPORT MICROSOFT since most of these 
devices do not include support for Macintosh or Unix computers. It 
is almost impossible to buy one of these devices that download or 
upload data from a computer and find support for anything but 
Microsoft Windows.
    Jack Rodgers
    



MTC-00026960

From: Stephen Degler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    The purpose of this mail is to comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement as outlined in the Tunney Act. I have read over Dan 
Kegel's comments http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html and I find 
that I am in agreement with them. I have also mailed Mr. Kegel and 
indicated my willingess to be to be a cosigner of his letter.
    It is clear to me that the settlement represents a sudden and 
drastic change in direction towards the resolution fot he Microsoft 
case. It is cowardly and insincere to aggressively and successfully 
pursue a (just) decision against Microsoft, and then suddenly back 
off with a toothless settlement. This change in direction is clearly 
due to the politics and policies of the Bush administration.
    In my limited understanding of our political system, this seems 
to indicate that the independence of the judical branch of the 
goverment has been compromised in some way. This has much greater 
impact on American society than the Microsoft case itself. I believe 
that most Americans who understand the actual issues surrounding 
this case are deeply troubled by the proposed settlement and would 
like to see one which addresses Microsoft's practices with remedies 
that will end their monopoly. The proposed settlement is a sellout 
which will undermine the peoples'' faith in the ability of our 
goverment to act in the interests of the American consumer.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Degler
    PO Box 707
    Philmont, NY 12565
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 27902]]



MTC-00026961

From: Ashley Grayson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    I understand that according to the Tunney rules I can comment on 
the DOJ settlement with Microsoft.
    As a long time Microsoft customer, who has used a wide variety 
of their products, I can say that the settlement is a very bad idea. 
Microsoft is a ruthless monopoly and predatory organization that has 
set back the progress of American innovation by ten or more years. 
Unchecked, Microsoft will continue to abuse consumers and think of 
itself as outside the law.
    The DOJ should rethink the settlement and act quickly to break 
up Microsoft.
    Regards,
    Ashley Grayson



MTC-00026962

From: dgcj4
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Now we have another COMPETITOR wanting to use our tax money to 
fight their market fight. How long is the government going to allow 
this fiasco to continue? A reasonable settlement was at hand and it 
seems those groups that are looking to wrench money for themselves 
out of the whole affair are allowed to continue to drag this on. 
Competitors continue to use litigation and the government to impede 
competition and innovation for us , the consumer. AOL paid $10 
billion for Netscape, they obviously saw current value but did 
nothing to enhance or innovate its services and they wonder why it 
could not compete. The government needs to end this Microsoft thing 
and let the marketplace to resolve consumer choice between 
competitors by itself. Some will survive and others who cannot 
provide a service wanted by consumers, such as integration of 
software capabilities, or who cannot offer sufficient support will 
not.



MTC-00026963

From: ROY C HENDERSHOT
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This litigation against Microsoft is at the point of lunacy. It 
is time to STOP, END IT, and keep the American public from having to 
continue to pad the lawyer's wallets (through government channels) 
of those trying to destroy Microsoft, ie, their competitors. Keep 
the proposed settlement where it is.
    R.J.HENDERSHOT
    Arizona



MTC-00026964

From: Dan Copeland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Two federal courts have declared that Microsoft is an illegal 
and anticompetitive trust and in violation of the Sherman Act. 
Microsoft continues to extend its anticompetitive behavior with the 
introduction of its .NET initiative, Passport and other information-
hoarding schemes, and the integration of such technologies with 
Windows XP.
    The currently proposed settlement is an insufficient remedy. I 
urge the Department of Justice to abandon the settlement in favor of 
one which addresses the problems outlined in the original Findings 
of Fact.
    Daniel P. Copeland
    2 Vulcan Stairway
    San Francisco, CA 94114
    (415) 522-6676



MTC-00026965

From: Peter Sanders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement of the United 
States vs. Microsoft antitrust case.
    I am against the current proposed Microsoft settlement--It 
does not provide any remedy to the continueing and systemic 
antitrust violations that Microsoft has committed over the past 10 
years, nor does it promise to prevent any future violations.
    The proposed settlement does nothing to address the 
``Microsoft tax'' present on the vast majority of PC 
systems available for purchase on the market. It is impossible to 
purchase a non-Windows system in any mainstream retail store in any 
area that I have researched.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Sanders



MTC-00026966

From: Stan Novacki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to state that I am opposed to the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. I believe that the 
proposed settlement does not adequately ensure that Microsoft's 
anti-competitive behavior will be curtailed, let alone eliminated. 
By failing to restrain Microsoft's repressive actions, emerging 
technologies which promise to promote technological progress and 
foster consumer choice are still prey to Microsoft's systematic and 
illegal elimination of threats--whether real or merely 
perceived--to its monopoly in PC operating systems and 
applications.
    Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns.
    Stanley M. Novacki, III
    4640 5th Street South
    Arlington VA 22204
    [email protected]



MTC-00026967

From: Andrew Puplis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear. Ms Hesse: This comment is in response to proposed 
Settlement between the US Department of Justice and participating 
states, and Microsoft. For the following reasons, the settlement 
should be rejected Section 3(b) only covers the top 20 OEM's. All 
other OEM's are not subject to pricing protections. This appears to 
create a high market entry barrier.
    Section 3(c)(1): Allows Microsoft to prevent the display of 
Middleware icons, menus, etc. by other manufacturers as long as they 
similarly prohibit their own display of Middleware. This exception 
essentially allow Microsoft to maintain the status quo by 
disallowing other middleware manufacturers from displaying their 
icons. Consumers not aware of another choice will choose Microsoft.
    Section 3(c)(2) Allows Microsoft to prevent the display of non-
Microsoft middleware displays if they do not impair the 
functionality of the user interface. However, the decision if the 
user interface is impaired seems to be left up to Microsoft to 
determine.
    Section 3(c)(3) requires that non-Microsoft Middleware providers 
make their icons of a similar size and shape as Microsoft's. This 
restriction seems to rekindle Microsoft's attempt to obtain 
copyright protection on utilitarian aspects of the windows 
interface. This the exact opposite claim they made in Apple vs.. 
Microsoft. In addition, this requirement seems to expose middleware 
manufactorers to potential claims for copyright and trade dress 
violations.
    Section 3(c)(5) requires that the OEM comply with reasonable 
technical specifications established by Microsoft. Has Microsoft 
published or otherwise released these technical specifications? What 
is to prevent Microsoft from creating specifications that hinder the 
operability of another operating system and defend those actions as 
reasonable for the functionality as they have historically done to 
prevent Non-Microsoft Middleware?
    Section 3(e) requires the availability of a communications 
protocol to allow interoperability with Windows. This won't be made 
available for another nine months after the submission of the 
proposed final judgment. Nine months in computer industry is an 
eternity. Microsoft has already shown its aggressiveness in this 
area. Allowing a nine month ``buffer'' before 
communications protocol is made available will give Microsoft 
additional time to shore up a monopoly over Middleware. In addition, 
the settlement agreement fails to provide the conditions under which 
the communications protocol. It is assumed that it will be provided 
under a confidentiality agreement. However, Microsoft may institute 
more restrictive terms under the guise of security that will render 
the availability moot. Indeed, other portions of the Settlement 
allow Microsoft to withhold information based on security concerns. 
This leaves Microsoft with the ability to restrict communication 
protocols to the point that they are useless.
    Section 3(h)(3) Allows Microsoft to alter icons, start menus, 
etc. of non-Microsoft Middleware providers 14 days after bootup of a 
new PC. Most computer users are not technically proficient to 
understand the impact of changing the Middleware applications that 
lets them browse the

[[Page 27903]]

internet, view pictures, play music, etc. In addition, 14 days may 
not be long enough for a new computer user to understand what 
middleware is and how it interrelates with what they view, listen 
to, etc.
    Section 3(h) allows Microsoft to prevent non-Microsoft 
Middleware from contacting Microsoft Servers.This section 
essentially eliminates the force of the Settlement. Users who 
normally use Non-Microsoft Middleware must use Microsoft Middleware 
(including web browsers) in order to contact Microsoft for updates, 
security patches, or other information from Microsoft. Because of 
Microsoft's lackluster security, contacting Microsoft's servers is 
almost a weekly event. Users will eventually choose the path of 
least resistance because of the need to constantly contact Microsoft 
servers. It seems that Microsoft's lack of security can be used to 
their advantage. In addition, this section fails to address 
Microsoft's .NET strategy (which will likely be defined as outside 
the context of general web browsing by Microsoft). This Settlement 
should act prospectively to prevent future harm, not retrospectively 
to address issues that are already moot.
    Section 3(h) Also allows Microsoft to prohibit Middleware that 
fails to implement a reasonable technical requirement. This section 
allows Microsoft to prohibit any Middleware that it doesn't like. 
Meaning, that Microsoft can require the Middleware to use 
proprietary Microsoft technology for which is may charge additional 
(and perhaps cost prohibitive) fees. This also, has the side affect 
of allowing Microsoft to further close competition in the computer 
industry by imposing proprietary technology. Section 3(h) allows 
Microsoft to refuse to disclose API's or Communications Protocols to 
those may compromise the security, anti-virus, anti-piracy, etc. 
This term allows Microsoft to refuse to provide API's or 
Communications Protocols under the guise of security, functionality, 
or rights protection. Again Microsoft could utilize this provision 
to refuse to provide Communication Protocols to potential Middleware 
competitors using these excuses. Section 3(h) also leaves it up to 
Microsoft who may obtain the API's and Communication Protocols. In 
addition, Microsoft may test the proposed Middleware for 
compatibility. However, there seems to be no procedure and standard 
for evaluating what Microsoft can choose to reject and on what 
grounds. The vague term ``functionality'' has been used 
throughout this Settlement without definition other than that 
Microsoft gets to decide what it is. General Comments: Many terms of 
the Settlement leave it up the reasonableness and discretion of 
Microsoft. This seems foolhardy because the very reason this lawsuit 
and proposed Settlement exist is because Microsoft has historically 
acted unreasonably and in bad faith against potential competitors. 
Therefore, leaving so many decisions to the discretion of Microsoft 
with regard to what their competitors may or may not do is (for lack 
of a better term) idiotic. In addition, their stall tactics and 
unreasonableness in court proceeding indicate they will stretch the 
Settlement terms to their logical extremes in order to continue to 
operate ``business as usual.''
    It seems that the Department of Justice's stance on the 
Microsoft case has changed with the changing of Presidential 
administrations. The Court of Appeals has ruled Microsoft a 
Monopoly, yet the Settlement terms are surprisingly light on 
Microsoft and don't address prospective behaviors. It leaves most 
important decisions to Microsoft and limits who may enforce the 
Settlement to the Department of Justice, whose it under scrutiny 
from the industry and political organizations alike. Indeed, a non-
profit Antitrust group may be filing suit because Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice failed to disclose all communications 
regarding the proposed Settlement. In addition, private organization 
are filing suit against Microsoft (e.g. Netscape) because they view 
the settlement as ineffectual. While these allegations may or may 
not be true, these facts raise suspicions that the term of the 
Settlement was politically motivated or improperly obtained by 
Microsoft.
    Finally, the Settlement contains so many ambiguous terms and 
loopholes that additional lawsuits will be inevitable. However, this 
Settlement will limit those suits and who can bring them without 
addressing the illegal conduct of Microsoft.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    A. Ryan Puplis, esq.
    2246 West Armitage
    Chicago, IL 60647



MTC-00026968

From: Jack Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:40 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have worked in the computer industry for many years including 
several years where I worked directly with Microsoft software 
developers. Microsoft executives have demonstrated multiple times 
that nothing less than a breakup of the company will stop them from 
breaking the antitrust laws.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00026969

From: Ray (038) Roberta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:42pm
Subject: My opinion
    Please consider my opinion in the Microsoft matter, attached.
    Thank you.
    10950 Fury Lane
    La Mesa, CA 91941
    January 11, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in response to the outcome of the Microsoft 
antitrust suit brought on by the Department of Justice. In my 
opinion, the case was without merit. I do not believe Microsoft 
infringed on any antitrust laws, either at the state or federal 
level. Likewise, I am adamantly opposed to any further legal action 
taken against Microsoft. I am, however, delighted to see the issue 
laid to rest. In this sense, I am satisfied with the settlement 
reached last November, and I hope that it will be enacted both 
nationally and eventually in the State of California. As such, I 
would appreciate it if you would press Attorney General Lockyer to 
become a party to the settlement.
    Despite the unwarranted nature of this case, Microsoft has been 
willing to incur penalties in the interest of resolving this 
dispute. Microsoft has agreed to share information about the 
internal workings of the Windows operating system with its 
competitors. This disclosure of information will enable competing 
software designers to replace their own programs where Microsoft 
programs have been. Licensing of Microsoft's Windows system has also 
been guaranteed at a constant cost. Thus, computer makers will be 
able to receive the popular OS at equal prices across the board. 
Thus, the settlement is constructed to give Microsoft competitors 
access to formerly protected information.
    These compromises are enormous. Yet, I will begrudgingly accept 
these terms as long as it ends this relentless persecution of 
Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Roberta Wisniewski



MTC-00026970

From: Fern Egurin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am a retired schoolteacher who uses Netscape software, and I 
fully support Microsoft in the antitrust case brought against it by 
the U.S. Government. I have never been restricted in what type of 
software I should use, nor have I been restricted in what type of 
computer to use. This case will enhance growth for competitors in 
several ways: Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software 
or hardware developers who develop or promote software that competes 
with Windows. In addition, Microsoft has agreed to license its 
Windows operating system products to the 20 largest computer makers 
on identical terms and conditions, including price.
    If a general consensus was taken regarding this case, I believe 
most would agree that Microsoft's business practices were fair and 
above board. People are concerned with two issues when comes to the 
IT industry...service and price. Please accept the proposed 
settlement so that Microsoft and consumers can put this issue behind 
them.
    Sincerely,
    Fern Egurin
    8970 South Hollybrook Boulevard
    Pembroke Pines, Florida 33025



MTC-00026971

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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:

[[Page 27904]]

    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of 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 Southwick
    326 Wauwinet Rd
    Barre, MA 01005



MTC-00026972

From: Edward A. Simmons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:45pm
Subject: Please consider this carefully!
Greetings!
    I debated this for a long time, before finally deciding to say 
something on this subject of Microsoft vs. DoJ. See, I am so 
disappointed the DoJ has completely and utterly failed the public it 
represents with this ``alleged'' settlement with 
Microsoft. As sad as it appears to be, if you have money and a 
monopoly you can do whatever you please, buy whomever you want. Here 
we have a totally unrepentant Microsoft dictating what the terms of 
settlement are. Microsoft needs to be stopped if there will ever be 
any claims of justice in our judicial system. Will my letter make a 
difference? Will my plea fall on deaf ears? Will my faith be 
restored in our justice system? As important as justice is, it 
should never be rushed for the sake of convenience of the court. I'm 
appalled at the idea that the events of Sept. 11, will even suggest 
that this case be expedited. What an absurd idea. I am stunned 
speechless this attitude, or the appearance thereof exists in this 
current court. Like any American, I am deeply saddened by the 9/11 
events and my hearts goes to the families of those affected by it. 
Here on the other hand, we have Microsoft enjoying the fruits of 
it's monopoly prior to that event, and indeed long after. Think 
carefully about what is at stake here.
    What actions would I like to see in regard to making things 
right again? Start with stopping Microsoft from forcing OEMs to pre 
install it's OS on all new computers. If an OEM wants to sell a 
Microsoft product, do it separately and fully disclose the costs. As 
a consumer, I don't want to pay Microsoft for an OS I don't need or 
want. There's something badly wrong in this country when a convicted 
monopolist can force OEMs to pre load products, and our judicial 
system turn it's head. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Do 
not neglect your responsibility to the citizens of this great 
nation.
    Edward A. Simmons
    (937) 321-8266
    The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim 
too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and 
achieving our mark.



MTC-00026973

From: Elaine Kurlander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:47pm
Subject: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I would like to give you my thoughts on the Microsoft Anti-Trust 
case. I have been following the case and am very happy that this 
settlement has been reached.
    I use Microsoft on a regular basis and am very happy with their 
products. I've never been prevented from using other products. I 
just haven't wanted to. But as part of the settlement, Microsoft is 
allowing other products on their Windows software. They have also 
made it easier for other companies to compete with them by handing 
over some of their technology secrets. When these companies come up 
with products competing with Microsoft, Microsoft has even agreed to 
not use ordinary normal business tactics to retaliate in the spirit 
of free competition. I hope that the Federal Government can set a 
positive example for the states still pursuing this mess.
    Please maintain this settlement to help our economy in these 
difficult times.
    Sincerely,
    Elaine Kurlander
    3314 Midfield Road



MTC-00026974

From: jjpilger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
5035 Pine Bark Circle
Atlanta, GA 30338
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I favor the settling of the Microsoft antitrust case. I firmly 
believe that this litigation is not in anyone's best interest and 
would have not been brought except for the actions of the company's 
principle competitors, Sun Microsystems and Oracle Corp.
    Who has been harmed? Not the users of personal computers. My 
life, for example, has been made much easier because of Microsoft's 
products. As to the charges that Microsoft engaged in 
anticompetitive behavior, government should expect ferocious fights 
among major enemies, stand aside and let the best win. Sadly, when 
the competition couldn't win in the marketplace, they took to the 
political arena. And a search will reveal that Mr. Scott McNealy and 
Mr. Larry Ellison are no strangers to practices that they condemn in 
others. The pot calling the kettle black, if you will.
    Both of the above men would better serve their respective 
companies and the American public at large, were they to devote 
their full time and energy into improving their products rather than 
lying awake dreaming up new diatribes against their more successful 
competitor, Microsoft.
    In closing, please note that I am not a shareholder in any of 
the above firms. I ask, please conclude this needless prosecution.
    Sincerely,
    (signed)
    John J. Pilger
    (770)391-0842



MTC-00026975

From: ??
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The original settlement between Microsoft and the government in 
November of 2001 was one in which Microsoft decided to give the 
government a certain amount of money, agreeing to change some of the 
ways the company runs. Microsoft was convicted by the government of 
breaking antitrust laws. Some states are still against Microsoft 
being a monopoly. There is a question of whether or not Microsoft 
really is a monopoly. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 prohibited 
what Microsoft is said to be doing now, which is being a monopoly.
    I believe that Microsoft really is abusing its power. They have 
provided every Microsoft computer with Internet Explorer, which 
really is being too competitive. I believe that the government 
should not have allowed Microsoft to make a settlement because now 
we see how competitive Microsoft really is. In November of 2001, the 
government should have sued Netscape to the full extent. The 
settlement offered by the government was wrong I believe because it 
let Microsoft off the hook too easily.
    Netscape was right to have sued Microsoft otherwise this case 
with Microsoft would have never ended. Netscape was bought by AOL 
Time Warner, another company that has been in controversy with 
Microsoft, in 1999.
    The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibited exactly what Microsoft is 
doing now. It said that there should be no more monopolies. The 
question is however: is Microsoft really a monopoly? Also, 
monopolies began at the start of Industrial America after the Civil 
War. John D. Rockefeller said that one of the disadvantages of 
monopolies is that ``...the power conferred by combination may 
be abused...'' (John D. Rockefeller on Industrial Combinations. 
From U.S. Industrial Commission. From Preliminary Report on Trusts 
and Industrial Combinations. 1st Session of 56th Congress. (Dec. 30, 
1899). This was a quote from a commission-like interview.]
    From:
    Irine Tyutereva
    8th Grade--The Harker School in San Jose, CA



MTC-00026976

From: David Pihl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For years, I have observed Microsoft from the perspective of an 
industry insider, and a

[[Page 27905]]

consumer. Mr. Gates is often credited with the very notion that 
software should be a protected intellectual property. Yet Microsoft 
has consistently violated the intellectual properties of others, 
such as the developers of Stacker.
    Whatever technicalities have allowed Microsoft to steal key 
elements of the Macintosh operating system, Netscape, DOS, etc., it 
is clear that they never intended for the rules to apply to them.
    If it were up to me, I would order many of Microsoft's existing 
intellectual properties (copyrights, patents, trademarks, 
sourcecode, etc.) into the public domain. This would not prevent 
them from developing new, innovative technologies which they can 
patent, copyright, or protect in other ways.
    This would also not dissalow Microsoft from selling the products 
they presently manufacture, as in the case of Caldera, or of Red Hat 
Linux. Anyway, it's something to think about.



MTC-00026977

From: Edward B. Riggio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: US DOJ
It is time to finalize the Microsoft Settlement.
    Lets not prolong this expensive Microsoft settlement any 
further. The actions agreed to by Microsoft, Justice Department and 
nine states including New York where I live, are fair and good for 
consumers.
    AOL is trying to gain a competitive edge by delaying the 
settlement. They have no case. We need to get on with strengthening 
the economy and one way to do this is to finalize the Microsoft 
Settlement by February 1, 2002.
    Respectively,
    Ed Riggio
    Woodstock, NY 12498



MTC-00026978

From: Mary Brislawn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:52pm
Subject: Letter Please read attachment. Thank You
1108 Z Street
Vancouver, WA 98661
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 17, 2002
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    The intention of this letter is to give my support to the 
settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice last November. The antitrust suit went on for over three 
years and cost the Microsoft Corporation and the government millions 
upon millions of dollars.
    Microsoft has been a major benefit to the economies of 
Washington and the United States. It has created a huge number of 
jobs, and has made our IT industry the world's gold standard. There 
are terms in the settlement that go beyond what was at issue in the 
lawsuit, especially the terms that makes Microsoft develop Windows 
differently in the future. It will be designed to make it easier for 
competitors and consumers to remove various facets of the operating 
system.
    At the conclusion of this comment period, I hope you will give 
your approval to the settlement in the Microsoft case.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Brislawn



MTC-00026979

From: John Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is John Thomas, and I am an 18-year-old American citizen 
residing in North Carolina. Having reached the milestone year, I 
think I've finally earned the right to voice my opinion and have it 
matter.
    Regarding the antitrust situation with Microsoft corporation, I 
think that the government is taking the wrong tack. To the average 
American consumer (a category into which I place myself), it would 
appear that our government is making him into a helpless victim, one 
who cannot even choose correctly the software for his computer that 
would be most beneficial to his work or pleasure. Perhaps I'm 
completely wrong, but it just seems to me that the government 
doesn't have the right to decide what can be in my computer or not. 
After all, I built it. I paid for the components and screwed them 
together. I paid Microsoft $99 for the upgrade to Windows 98 and I 
use it for hours per day. At my job at a therapy clinic, I benefit 
from Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and Microsoft Word's easy-to-use 
word processing software.
    This case would seem to be a gross miscalculation on the 
government's part. If I could point your attentions to the fact that 
the antitrust complaint originated with some of Microsoft's more 
unsuccessful partners, realize that this wasn't a cry from the 
people, or from the people Microsoft partners... this was an attempt 
to lash back at the successful company by its competitors left in 
the dust. It seems completely illogical and unjust to allow the men 
whose businesses failed in this particular market to set the 
regulations for those who have not, like Microsoft corporation. One 
question weighing most heavily on my mind is, how can a successful 
business AND its useful products be a threat to anyone? After all, 
if one doesn't like Microsoft's products, one doesn't have to use 
them. I am, after all, also an avid Linux user. If I so chose I 
could stop using all Microsoft products permanently. However, I 
choose not to because they are useful, easy to use, and most 
efficiently get my daily tasks taken care of. I don't see a threat 
here. I see a businessman, Bill Gates, helping the world to run more 
smoothly and efficiently, as well as making himself quite a living 
in the process.
    Speaking of Bill Gates, I grew up as a teenager hearing about 
his rise to one of the richest men in the world. This case would 
seem to suggest that those who are successful are put on a leash, 
with a choke chain attached. I've noticed this with the income tax 
as well. Sitting as I am in the lowest tax bracket and thus paying 
the least percentage of my income, I still find it unjust that those 
who are more successful than I, must pay a greater percentage of 
their income. Correct me if I'm wrong, but growing up I'd always 
thought that America was supposed to be free. I want that free 
America--an America where I, with my considerable intelligence 
and a liberal dose of plain old hard work, could maybe BE the next 
Bill Gates.
    But why would I WANT a successful business? This case seems to 
demonstrate the truth of the maxim that if my business fails, I can 
bring down my successful competitors out of spite. How dare they 
rise above me. How dare they be successful where I was not. How dare 
they offer a superior product, and charge what it's worth. How dare 
they take advantage of a free market.
    A free market. Isn't that what we're supposed to have here in 
America? At the very least, that's what they've been teaching me in 
these public schools from which I so recently graduated. It would 
seem to me that in a free market such as the one we have in this 
wonderful country, that Microsoft corporation-- just the same 
as myself--has a fundamental right to its property. Correct 
this high-school graduate if I'm wrong, but I think the government 
is supposed to protect the rights of all citizens to their life, 
liberty, and property. It looks to me like we're robbing Bill Gates 
of his life, because we're taking his business... and his liberty, 
because we're shackling him and his freedom to run his business as 
he sees fit... and his property, in the form of this unjust and 
illogical antitrust case.
    Thank you for your time in listening to my voice. It is, after 
all, 1/270,000,000th of this country.
    John J. Thomas
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,jkaxiom3
@aol.com@...



MTC-00026981

From: Anastas Pazevic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I urge you to quickly ratify the Microsoft settlement. Further 
lawsuits by various states will only benefit lawyers and foreign 
competitors who would be the 0nly benefactors in the demise of our 
wounded economy. We need strong, competitive and innovative 
Microsoft Corporation. We, the retired, are most grateful to 
Microsoft and its contributions to America and we wish this witch 
hunt to stop. Thank you for considering.
    Anastas J Pazevic
    Anastas Pazevic
    [email protected]
    EarthLink: It's your Internet.



MTC-00026982

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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.

[[Page 27906]]

    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user. This is just another method for states 
to get free money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only 
in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of 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 Rivera
    12270 SW Center St. #114
    Beaverton, OR 97005



MTC-00026983

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:55pm
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,
    Shirley Bates
    1906 Leavenworth
    San Francisco, CA 94133



MTC-00026984

From: Patrick Fleming
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice,
    Regarding the proposed settlement of the current Microsoft 
antitrust suit I believe that the penalties proposed are too light 
and will force the government into further court cases with 
Microsoft in the future. When choice is taken away from the 
consumer, as in this case, we are harmed. As the past behavior of 
Microsoft shows, they are not interested in the consumer, only in 
increased or maintained market share. In 1994, Microsoft moved to 
shut Netscape out of the browser market- not through increased 
performance and enhanced abilities, but rather through restrictive 
licensing practices forcing OEMs into installing only Internet 
Explorer on Windows operating systems installed by the OEMs. Today, 
on Microsoft's own website it is declared, ``Windows 2000 
Professional is designed to make it easier for organizations to 
embrace the Internet. The built-in Internet Explorer (IE), a tightly 
integrated browser, provides users with a faster and richer Internet 
experience. With support for Dynamic HTML (DHTML) and Extensible 
Markup Language (XML), it offers a powerful platform for developers 
to create highly scalable end-to-end e-commerce and line-of-business 
web applications.'' This appears to be in clear violation of 
past consent decrees regarding Windows and the Internet Explorer 
software. They have expanded the hold on the browser market by 
implemented unwritten, undocumented, protocols and extensions into 
Front Page that did not, and still do not, display correctly using 
any browser except Internet Explorer forcing web surfers to use IE 
when viewing pages written using Front Page. The resulting 
statistics gathered by web site owners and operators shows a decided 
advantage to IE and leads to reduced standards coding and towards IE 
specific coding- a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more IE specific 
the coding the higher the percentage of users will use IE to view 
the page driving the statistics higher still on IE causing 
programmers to believe (if they only look at their own stats) that 
IE is the predominate browser. MS account executives are able to 
convince technology purchasers that the only web server viable is 
the current offering of Windows 2000 running Internet Information 
Server 5.0 since statistics show IE as the highest used browser and 
W2k/IIS5 as the only server capable of using the proprietary 
extensions of all those IE browser users. Eventually this circular 
logic begins to lock in the browser and then the server market, 
standards fall by the wayside, and users of other browsers find that 
they are unable to view a larger and larger percentage of web sites 
without using the operating systems and browsers provided by MS.
    It is no great leap to imagine that Microsoft will not follow 
the latest settlement as written (even though it is not very harmful 
to Microsoft as written) and will continue to move forward 
``embracing and extending'' until the operating system 
encompasses every conceivable function driving out not only 
potential competing operating systems, but all software 
manufacturers as well.
    Just as we would not want to have a single company supplying our 
automobiles, computers (without the operating system installed), 
gasoline, steel, electricity, telephone access, tires (suppose only 
Firestone tires were available?) we should not want a single company 
controlling our computers, which web sites we can view, and which 
software we can use. Allowing Microsoft to maintain their monopoly 
in the manner prescribed can only worsen the state of computer 
security, preclude choice to the end user and reduce the overall 
quality of available products. The originally penalties imposed by 
Judge Jackson should be reinstated. Microsoft needs to be forced to 
compete on an even level with Netscape. It should be forced to open 
all of its APIs to the programing community at large so that all 
products can inter operate equally with the operating system. Only 
by having real solutions rather than a slap on the wrist as imposed 
by this agreement can we be assured that Microsoft is competing 
fairly, rather than shutting out competitors by hiding parts of its 
functionality within the APIs. Already MS has integrated the browser 
into its operating system. When a real threat of an office suite of 
products emerges will they then integrate MS Office into the 
operating system as well? The only real solution is to break MS up 
into the three distinct companies that Judge Jackson proposed 
forcing equal competition. Oversight of the settlement needs to 
continue for longer than the five (or seven) years proposed as well. 
Would the Justice Department have agreed that AT&T not be forced 
to break up or that they would only be restricted to five years of 
oversight? I believe not.
    Microsoft has been charged with, and found guilty of, seriously 
damaging customer choice, forcing artificially high prices, 
suppression of competition and blatantly ignoring their previous 
consent decree. The punishment should fit the crime.
    Patrick Fleming,
    Consumer



MTC-00026985

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. 
This settlement is a mere slap on the wrist and will not prevent 
Microsoft from continuing the break the law in the future.



MTC-00026986

From: Adrian P. Sinnott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice a complaint against the proposed Microsoft 
settlement.
    Microsoft has bullied there way through the computer market and 
now truly has everyone by the short hairs. After reviewing the 
current settlement, I find it woefully inadequate.
    Regards,
    Adrian P. Sinnott



MTC-00026987

From: Jack Lloyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I belive the PFJ is insufficient to prevent future monopolistic 
actions on the part of Microsoft. Of greatest concern for me is 
Microsoft's use of frivoulous patents and/or abuse of the copyright 
system to prevent reverse engineering to allow for interoperable 
products. I feel this is a certral issue with the problem which 
should be better dealt with.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Lloyd
    Johns Hopkins University



MTC-00026988

From: Salzberg, Steven L.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Dept of Justice:
    I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is bad for the 
country, bad for the

[[Page 27907]]

computing industry, and bad for business worldwide.
    I have been watching Microsoft grow since its founding when I 
was a computer science Ph.D. student, and I can honestly say that I 
do not know of a single major innovation they have introduced. Their 
claim that they just want to be free to innovate is nonsense. Their 
strategy is to copy what works and then use their monopoly to 
destroy the competition. What we end up with is inferior products 
with no choice. It's really unfortunate. Breaking up the company is 
the obvious and best choice for solving the problem: the operating 
system needs to be sold by a completely separate unit. Only then 
might we have a hope of seeing some true competition.
    I urge the DoJ to reject this settlement.
    Steven Salzberg
    Steven Salzberg, Ph.D. Email: [email protected]
    Senior Director of Bioinformatics http://www.tigr.org/salzberg
    The Institute for Genomic Research Ph: (301)315-2537 Fax:
    (301)838-0208
    9712 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850
    Research Professor, Dept. of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins 
University,
    Baltimore, MD 21218



MTC-00026989

From: Anthony Mirvish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir,
    I am writing in connection with the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft anti-trust case and to voice my support for the complete 
vindication of Microsoft and its policies. In reaching your final 
decision on the disposition of this case I would encourage you to 
consider the following points.
    a.. The anti-trust laws are based on a fundamentally false and 
reasonable view of so-called ``perfect'' competition.
    b.. Under this view, companies that actually attempt to change 
market conditions i.e. to compete, can be charged with anti-
competitive measures.
    c.. Competition is dynamic; no particular configuration in the 
market at any one time is fixed. If some new product that made 
personal computers obsolete were developed, Microsoft would not be 
able to give its products away. If it anticipated such a 
development, it would have every right to them.
    d.. Companies can be prosecuted for raising prices, lowering 
prices, holding prices firm, entering into agreements with other 
companies, and for improving the efficiency and quality of their 
products (as in US versus Alcoa).
    e.. This creates arbitrary and essentially ex post facto laws, 
preventing companies from knowing in advance when or if particular 
measures will cause them to violate the anti-trust laws.
    f.. It is unjust to attempt to apply laws whose basic concepts 
are unreasonable, whose application is arbitrary, and which (if 
viewed as ex post facto laws) unconstitutional.
    g.. The historical basis for the anti-trust laws is false.
    h.. Even the great so-called monopoly cases of the early 20th 
century (esp Standard Oil) misrepresented the operations of the 
market.
    i.. In most cases, asymmetrical competition and the effect of 
different products have been ignored.
    j.. In Standard Oil, the enormous financial gains of entering 
the oil market had already brought Standard's share down to 60% (and 
dropping) at the time it was broken up.
    k.. An industry consisting of a few companies, making marginal 
changes in price and market share, is not an example of competition.
    l.. True competition and innovation (which Microsoft is alleged 
to have stifled), involve the development of different products, not 
complaints about being unable to offer a similar but inferior 
product (which is what Microsoft's competitors desire).
    m.. Microsoft has made an enormous investment in developing good 
quality products.
    n.. There are several other operating systems and browsers on 
the market. No one is prevented from using them. Bill Gates did not 
stop Linux from developing.
    o.. In areas where Microsoft's products are less than perfect 
(for example, I prefer WordPerfect to Word), choosing competitor's 
products produces no ill-effect. If I tried to not pay taxes for a 
year, the effect would be different. This is the difference between 
true coercion and having to make a choice in the market.
    p.. More than 95% of all anti-trust cases are brought by 
competitors of the company being sued.
    q.. Anti-trust encourages political/judicial resolution of 
market competition. PACS and donations to political from technology 
companies have skyrocketed since this case was brought.
    r.. One may disagree with Microsoft's concept of bundling its 
products with its operating system, but it is a perfectly reasonable 
and innovative concept of how software should operate. It is 
distinct from that offered by Microsoft's competitors.
    s.. None of Microsoft's competitors have behaved as if they 
really want to compete i.e. by developing superior or fundamentally 
different and innovative products and then marketting them.
    t.. None of Microsoft's competitors have been willing to accept 
the voluntary decision of millions of satisfied customers, all of 
whom have accepted and seen merit in Microsoft's products (and in 
its concept of bundling them with an operating system).
    u.. It is wrong to force individuals to subsidize or support the 
products of companies that they have already rejected.
    v.. Individuals (and by extension companies) have a right to 
their own property. This means that they have a right to determine 
the terms on which those products are developed or sold.
    w.. The right to own property means the right to use and dispose 
of it--this involves the right to make contracts, and contracts 
are inherently exclusionary in that they are between a finite number 
of parties.
    x.. If wealthy private individuals like Mr. Gates do not have a 
right to their own property, which they have built-up and earned 
lawfully, or to hold it only by political sufferance, then none of 
us ultimately have a right to our own property.
    y.. No one is supposed to lose their rights just because they 
are rich and successful. No part of our constitution says otherwise. 
It speaks of equal protection for all.
    z.. No one has a right to another person's property, person, 
time or good opinion. aa.. There is no such thing as a right to a 
particular market share other than the one that one has earned.
    ab.. There is no such thing as a right to immunity from failure 
or from the effects of poor business decisions (or to the 
consquences of superior decisions made by others).
    ac.. There is no such thing as a right to a given product, at a 
given price, at a given time. Consumers have only four honest 
choices in a market: buy what is offered on the terms set by the 
seller, do without the product, purchase another product (if 
available), persuade the seller to change his terms (perhaps by 
using less). There is also the option of developing a competing 
product. Microsoft's ``competitors'' have been unwilling 
to truly do the latter and refuse to accept the judgement of 
millions of satisfied customers.
    ad.. Microsoft's ``competitors'' should not be allowed 
to profit through the courts when they have failed in the 
marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Mirvish
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,letters@capitalis..



MTC-00026990

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:07pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Folks at DOJ
    Please leave the proposed settlement as is. It's fair to all 
concerned, including senior consumers. It's time to move on.
    R. Waddington
    5207 Acorn Drive
    Camp Springs, MD 20748



MTC-00026991

From: Bill Dennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lawmakers:
    I hope that you will reject the Tunney Act settlement in the 
United States vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. I believe that this 
settlement will only cement Micosoft's stranglehold on PC 
development by creating a new generation of children who are taught 
to believe that a computer always runs Microsoft Windows. They will 
just grow up believing in whatever their teachers show them on 
Microsoft powered PC computers.
    Thanks,
    Bill Dennis
    904-268-3359
    [email protected]
    www.jacksonville.net/billden

[[Page 27908]]



MTC-00026992

From: Stuart H Van Dyke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:11pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    This case has gone on long enough. A reasonable settlement has 
been reached, and the action should not be prolonged to benefit some 
of the competitors. Let's get on with our business.



MTC-00026993

From: John Fusek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlemen
    Gentlemen;
    I am against the proposed Settlement with Microsoft. As an 
independent consultant in Linux I feel that the settlement would 
have an adverse effect on the open source community.
    I also support Steve Satchell as one of the members of the 
comittee to enforce the terms.
    John Fusek
    [email protected]



MTC-00026994

From: Brad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to say my opinion about the settlement by claiming it's 
not enough to stop the Microsoft monopoly which would continue for 
many more years if this agreement is approved.
    Brad Petrik



MTC-00026995

From: Mr David Sundqvist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    The damage that Microsoft has caused the computer industry is 
immense. They have, time after time, showed that they will tolerate 
no competition, and that they are willing to take any measures, 
legal or not, to crush any apparent competition. Their definition of 
competition is virtually anyone who makes any significant profit in 
a segment where they are active.
    The result of this is that today, it is virtually impossible to 
create new consumer software for the PC market. You will not make 
any profit from it, because if you make a successful product your 
best bet is to get bought by Microsoft and maybe regain what you 
spent on development. The alternative is that they copy the product 
and ``integrate'' it in Windows (also known as dumping) 
and kill off your buisness. An industry where your only place is to 
be a risk taker for a monopoly is not a healthy industry. They are 
on their way to do the same thing with the server market. This time 
leveraging the desktop monopoly, making sure that the deals for the 
desktop becomes painful if companies do not buy the server products.
    The remedy in the settlement is not enough. It is not a 
significant deterrent to prevent further illegal practices, nor does 
it adress the structural damage to the industry that their practices 
have resulted in. The courts and the department of justice must not 
allow lawbreakers to profit from their illegal actions and sneer at 
the legal system in the way that Microsoft has done.
    Please make sure that crime does not pay. This settlement does 
not do that, because the ``pay'' for this crime ranges in 
the hundreds of billions of dollars, and unless stronger remedies 
are used the illegal practices will continue.
    Best regards,
    David Sundqvist
    Pia Roennqvist



MTC-00026996

From: Shawn MacDougall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    It is the belief of many in the education and technology fields 
that the proposed antitrust settlement with Microsoft Corporation is 
not in the best interests of the American people. It does not 
protect against future abuses and in fact encourages the spread of 
the Microsoft software monopoly by proliferating the use of their 
operating system and attendant application programs to the exclusion 
of very viable software alternatives. Students in American public 
schools can only learn to use computers, an essential skill for the 
coming generation, on the products provided to them.
    The Northern Territories school district in Australia, with a 
population of just over 200,000, finds that it saved $1,000,000 in 
the first year alone by using Linux alongside Microsoft products to 
provide computer education at all grade levels. This was enough to 
allow the school district to purchase an additional 1,000 computers 
for distribution in the schools and as loaner units for students 
(and their parents) to use at home. In a few short years their 
children will be competing, very effectively, on the worldwide 
intellectual marketplace against American children whose access to 
hardware was hampered by the prohibitive cost imposed by the 
practice of using Microsoft products all but exclusively in the 
public schools. The Australian experience could have been 
dramatically more productive had they used Linux as the operating 
system on all their computers but it was a good initial step.
    The present savings represent its use in their servers only. 
http://opensourceschools.org/article.php'story=20011207001012102 In 
Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul's state university has saved about 
$500,000 using a free alternative to software running with 
Microsoft's proprietory database system. Using the free, open source 
database called SAGU, the school and 5 branch campuses manage 
matriculation, grading, scheduling and several other administrative 
functions. The student computer labs have also saved thousands of 
dollars using Linux as a replacement for Microsoft Windows. 
Relicensing fees have dropped dramatically in the three years since 
switching over to Linux totalling a savings of around $20 million. 
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2001/
tc20011025--8523.htm
    Microsoft should pay its fine in hardware donations only. Red 
Hat Software of Research Triangle Park, NC, (near Durham, NC) has 
offered to provide pro-bono copies of the Linux operating system 
corresponding to a Microsoft donation of hardware. Any donation of 
software that Microsoft might choose to make would not be included 
in the proposed settlement but must also be a pro-bono gesture 
corresponding to the Red Hat Software offer. Moreover, any copies of 
software Microsoft might donate should require no payment of any 
sort by the schools at any forward point in time. It must be a true 
donation of indefinite duration, just as the Red Hat offer is. 
Otherwise, if required to pay, the schools would eventually have to 
abandon their training programs for lack of funds to re-license / 
upgrade their software. http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/
202744--1.html
    While Microsoft Corporation should not be excluded from 
expressing generosity, such generosity, expressed as software gifts, 
only furthers their ability to monopolize the marketplace and should 
not be permitted as a part of the penalty for having followed 
illegal practices in the establishment of their dominance in the 
software market.
    Microsoft has painted itself the champion of choice and freewill 
while villifying open-source software as being un-American. It is 
time for their actions, public and private, to match their very 
public words.
    Software donations should be no part of the proposed settlement. 
Shawn MacDougall 1331 Terry Ave #705 Seattle, WA 98101 
206.652.1492



MTC-00026997

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my voice to the thousands of others who are 
ready to let Microsoft get back to work. The terms of the proposed 
settlement seem fair to all parties and best of all, would put an 
end to this destructive legal hassel. I am an average American 
working for a living. I use Microsoft products every day and am 
grateful to the company for all they have done to make our lives 
better. As owner of a small amount of Microsoft stock, it is hard to 
see that any good for anyone can come from further legal attacks on 
Microsoft. Enough is enough.
    Bonnie F. Wood
    Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company
    B3S
    [email protected]
    610-407-1462
    fax 302-452-7264



MTC-00026998

From: John Fusek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 27909]]

    To whom it may concern:
    I am against the settlement as it currently stands.
    John Fusek



MTC-00026999

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    maria Belcea
    11 Carter Brook Lane
    Princeton, NJ 08540



MTC-00027000

From: Dylan Thurston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I urge you not to accept the proposed final judgement in United 
States v. Microsoft Corp., Civil No. 98-1232. The proposal is 
flawed in many ways, as detailed by Dan Kegel , who I largely agree with. Let 
me focus on one particular issue which is not covered by his letter: 
the terms under which Communications Protocols and other APIs are to 
be released.
    Section III.E of the PFJ provides for the release of 
Communications Protocols under ``reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms''. Similar terms are described in other 
sections. Such terms exclude an extremely important class of 
software: free software. Users of free software have the liberty to 
``run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the 
software'' . 
Documentation released under reasonable and non-discriminatory 
(RAND) terms is not useful for free software producers: typical RAND 
terms prohibit public disclosure of the information, but free 
software is, by definition, distributed with its source.
    Lest you think that free software is unimportant, let me note 
that the protocols at the heart of the Internet and the 
WWW--including the TCP/IP protocol for routing information, the 
DNS protocol for distributing domain names, the SMTP protocol for 
sending e-mail, and the HTTP protocol behind Web pages--were 
produced using free software and are commonly implemented using free 
software. For instance, in the domain of Web servers, Apache (a free 
software project) is in active, direct competition with Microsoft's 
Internet Information Server. More generally, the GNU/Linux operating 
system, a free software system, figured promninently in the original 
trial as an alternative to Microsoft Windows.
    The PFJ does nothing to help a large class of competitors to 
Microsoft: free software projects. Please do not accept it in its 
current form.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Dr. Dylan Paul Thurston
    Research Fellow
    Harvard University
    Chung-chieh Shan
    Research Assistant
    Harvard University
    CC:Ken Shan



MTC-00027002

From: Dave Powers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There is no good reason NOT to break up Microsoft.
    Dave Powers



MTC-00027003

From: John Fusek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am against the settlement as it does not provide adequate 
protection for the Open Source movement.
    John Fusek



MTC-00027004

From: Damien Barrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft
    As pointed out by Dan Gillmore, Microsoft has clearly violated 
parts of the Tunney Act.
    Not to mention they've been openly and arrogantly abusing their 
monopoly power in the desktop market for years.
    It's time for the U.S. Government stepped in and forced 
Microsoft to play fair. I'm getting tired of paying outrageous 
prices for Microsoft's not-so-great software. Were competition 
introduced back into the market (were MS to play fair), I'm certain 
us IT admins wouldn't have to constantly deal with the almost daily 
vulnerabilities in MS software.
    Make Microsoft play fair. Break them up. I don't care as long as 
the industry continues to improve. With MS in the lead and stifling 
the innovation of hundreds of technology companies, it's doing 
little but stagnating.
    I wanted to go on record with my viewpoint. I'm hoping that the 
USDJ gets enough emails to finally take notice of Microsoft's abuses 
of power and does something to stop this juggernaut of 
irresponsibility from extending into other markets.
    Damien Barrett



MTC-00027005

From: Eloise Knapp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:32pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT:
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to take this opportunity to discuss my feelings 
regarding the antitrust settlement that has been reached between the 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I feel that the settlement 
is more than fair and the matter needs to be wrapped up as soon as 
possible. Microsoft has even agreed to terms that extend past what 
was originally in the suit. The damage that has done to the IT 
industry and the economy is not worth what will come out of 
continuing ligations.
    Microsoft generosity in our area alone (Washington State) is 
greatly appreciated and much needed. Cut backs with Boeing and the 
ENRON business--is cutting into small business--having 
dealt with Enron. This is only the tip of the ice berg in our state. 
It is now very important, people in this state ban together, to try 
and keep our economy a-float.
    Microsoft support--money and computer supplies--is 
very important to the area's- areas that otherwise wouldn't have the 
opportunity to experience the likes of, because lack of state money 
to support education
- mainly due to the location and size of the county the schools are 
located in. What I have read and heard
- these are the counties Microsoft seems to reach out to, 
generously. Not to mention Microsof't generosity overseas.
    From what I see--the terms of the settlement are fair; they 
will benefit the consumer and other companies. Microsoft has agreed 
to document and disclose for use by its competitors various 
inerfaces that are internal Windows'' operation system 
products-a first in an antitrust case. MICROSOFT HAS ALSO AGREED TO 
LICENSE ITS WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM PRODUCTS TO THE TWENTY LARGEST 
COMPUTER MAKERS ON IDENTICAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
    Please encourage the Justice Department to put and end to all of 
this. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to express my views.
    Sincerely,
    Eloise Knapp
    13730 15th Ave NE
    B201
    Seattle, Washington 98125



MTC-00027007

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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

[[Page 27910]]

fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than 
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors, 
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the 
computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of 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 Hall
    POB 6733
    Marietta, GA 30065



MTC-00027013

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:34pm
Subject: Competitors actions
    Let's face it, the technology that we are enjoying today would 
be so disorganized and costly that it would be impossible for the 
majority to have it available. Microsoft has had the foresight and 
the where with all to make it work. I can't imagine what it would be 
like if we had even as few as 5 operating systems to choose from. 
Every program company would have to develop 5 different programs 
instead of just one.
    We need standards that every vender can work with. Microsoft has 
established those standards.
    The competitors are just wasting the taxpayers money in their 
pursuit of Microsoft.
    If you want to go after monopolies, how about the security 
industry? Just about every one of the manufacturers of mechanical 
security devices is, at present owned by two foreign companies. They 
have even absorbed the trade journals. Most of the manufacturers 
that have been absorbed date back to the industrial revolution.
    Roy W. Nicholas CML
    2731 Lynn St.
    Bellingham, WA 98225



MTC-00027014

From: Dr. Stephen J. Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    There is nothing that has done more harm to innovation in 
computer software than Microsoft.
    Microsoft is largely an ``anti-innovation'' company. 
The development of the company is, is for the most part, based on 
ruthless, unethical, and probably illegal business practices. The 
result is that the computer software landscape is now largely the 
``dead zone''. Would you like to use a word processor? 
Sure, no problem, as long as it is MS Word. I still recall how 
appalled I was the first time I noted the National Science 
Foundation (the primary federal funding agency for basic research in 
the physical sciences) was requiring grant applications in WORD! The 
product of a private company. It was as if giving Microsoft money 
was an unavoidable tax levied on anyone who wanted to be a citizen 
of this country. There was a time, which I can well recall, when 
there was a wide choice of word processing software, both on the DOS 
(later Windows) and Macintosh side.
    Is this because of the inherent superiority of Word? That is 
laughable. Word has it's adherents but in my opinion is far down the 
list of good design. After the monopoly was established we entered 
into the endless cycle of useless upgrades, cleverly insinuated by 
Microsofts purposeful file incompatibilities.
    Another unavoidable tax levied by an entity that is now as 
powerful (or apparently more powerful) than the federal government 
elected to represent us all. Other areas, followed the same pattern.
    The proposed settlement is an obscene joke and apparently we 
will have to kill the smothering influence of Microsoft in some 
other way. I am absolutely opposed to the settlement as described in 
the press.
    Regards,
    Stephen J. Kennedy



MTC-00027015

From: Michael Wittman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software engineer with 11 years experience developing 
software for Microsoft Windows and other operating systems, I'd like 
to comment on the Proposed Final Judgement in United States vs. 
Microsoft. I belive that the proposed settlement is not in the 
public interest. In fact, it is so seriously flawed and full of 
loopholes that it would allow Microsoft to continue its 
anticompetitive business practices virtually unchanged. Even worse, 
these practices would then have the imprimatur of the United States 
government, resulting in even less competition in the market for 
operating systems. Many significant loopholes in the proposed 
settlement are evident in the definitions of various terms. It is 
troubling to note that several definitions adopted in the Findings 
of Fact have been watered down to the benefit of Microsoft. For 
example, ``API'' is defined in the proposed setttlement to 
mean interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows. 
However, the same term is defined in the Findings of Fact as the 
interfaces between application programs and the operating system. 
Curiously, the latter definition is the one actually used in 
industry, while the former is the one proposed by the government and 
Microsoft.
    While this difference in definition may seem trivial to 
layperson, its inclusion would have a very serious effect on the 
ability to interoperate with software produced by Microsoft. It 
could permit Microsoft to restrict the release of information needed 
to use fundamental operating system functions such as application 
installation, which would make it difficult for parties not favored 
by Microsoft to compete with its operating system. Another troubling 
aspect of the settlement also relates to APIs and is detailed in 
section III. J. 1. It describes exceptions to the required release 
of API information which would effectively give Microsoft carte 
blanche to make any APIs it disclosed unusable to competitors. It 
could do this by integrating encryption or security functionality 
with any API, even if that functionality was purely superfluous to 
the main purpose of the API. By integrating this functionality in 
such a way that it had to be used in order to make use of the 
remaining parts of the API, the entire API could be made unusable to 
competitors.
    For these reasons and many others, I strongly believe that the 
proposed settlement is not in the public interest and should be 
rejected by the court.
    Sincererely,
    Michael Wittman



MTC-00027016

From: Lord J.A.Cummings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    To spare you the time of reading again many of the same strong 
opinions given by others outraged by Microsoft's End User License 
Agreement, I shall be voicing my opinion by joining those masses in 
number, in requesting that you please reconsider the leniency 
against Microsoft in the proposed Antitrust settlement.
    Thank you,
    Lord J.A.Cummings



MTC-00027017

From: Chris Rotella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Why are they getting off 
with a slap on the wrist? They deserve to be split, completely 
separating the Applications and OS divisions. Internet Explorer must 
be removed from the OS. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. The 
cost of their monopoly grows each day. How much money has been lost 
because of the security holes in their products? The number is in 
the billions.
    Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. However, they still 
continue to leverage their monopoly power so as to control other 
areas. Witness the bundling of software with Windows XP. Out of the 
box, Windows XP cannot rip CDs to MP3s. It can however, rip CDs to 
Microsoft's propriety WMA format. Microsoft is a convicted 
monopolist. They should be punished as one.
    Thank you,
    Chris Rotella
    Math major
    Carnegie Mellon University



MTC-00027018

From: Gary Lindgren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Collen Kollar-Kotelly:
    From my understanding, the Tunney Act requires full disclosure 
of all government contacts. Most of the attention has been that 
Microsoft has been not disclosed all of the lobbying that they have 
done. But does the Tunney Act also require full disclosure by the 
supporters of this suit against Microsoft. I am referring to Apple, 
Sun Microsystems, and Oracle Corp. I believe that these

[[Page 27911]]

companies must also disclose all contacts they have had regarding 
Microsoft. I know that several times, President Clinton stayed at 
Steve Jobs home while visiting the Bay Area. I'm sure Microsoft came 
came up as a topic at supper time. Please look into this.
    Thank you,
    Gary Lindgren
    585 Lincoln Ave
    Palo Alto CA 94301
    650-594-3846



MTC-00027019

From: Shabana Insaf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:42pm
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 been a highly satisfied customer of Microsoft products 
for a decade. I prefer to use the microsoft internet explorer over 
the Netscape browser, since it is linked to many programs and 
therefore is very convinient to use. It is beyond my imagination 
that offering such convinience to customers is unlawful in a country 
such as America which stands for freedom. It is time we re-examined 
the anti-trust law structure which allows unsuccessful businesses to 
force the market down so they can compete. This is not in accordance 
with the fundamental principles of capitalism. As a consumer, I am 
appalled that a company that offers it's browser for free is being 
harrassed because another company wishes to compete by charging for 
their browser. As a taxpayer, I lose from both sides since my tax 
money is being used to destroy a company that has served the people 
of America with its ingenuity and courage. I hope that the 
department of justice will not commit this act of injustice directed 
towards microsoft and ultimately towards all the people of America.
    Sincerely,
    Shabana Insaf
    Shabana Insaf
    Senior Research Scientist I
    Wyeth Ayerst Research
    Department of Infectious Diseases Research
    Building 222, Room 3149
    401 N Middletown Road
    Pearl River, NY 10965
    Phone: 845-732-2241
    Fax: 845-732-5561
    E mail: [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,activism@mor...



MTC-00027020

From: Jack Benner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe the proposed settlement is bad idea because 
Microsoft's domination of the current OS, applications and internet 
browsers markets is dangerous. Only one microprocessor family is 
supported. Our infrastructure in the USA is dependent on Microsoft 
making the Windows OS secure which they have been unable to do even 
with their latest Windows XP. Make Microsoft share information so 
that all developers can compete on an equal footing. Make Microsoft 
enable cross platform sharing of information. Apple, Unix, Linux and 
any other OS should be able to be good clients and servers in a 
Microsoft network or Intra/Internet. Finally a provision 
establishing such serious consequences for non-compliance that 
Microsoft will not attempt to evade the necessary disclosure 
requirements and other mandates.
    Thank you,
    Jack S. Benner II, PhD
    [email protected]



MTC-00027021

From: Pat Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to close this issue, accepting the settlement 
proposed. Competitors should not be given the opportunity to force 
the issue to remain in costly litigation.
    Patricia Russell



MTC-00027022

From: mayer ilovitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under The Tunney Act, I would like to add some comments on the 
proposed Microsoft settlement.
    By this point, you will have received many letters from those 
who have presented the flaws of the proposed settlement in far more 
detail and far more eloquently than I could at this late date. 
However, I feel compelled to to reiterate some of their points. -
    The very history of this proposed settlement is disconcerting. 
It was created by a newly appointed head of the antitrust division 
of the DOJ and Microsoft's lawyers. By all reports, all the other 
DOJ lawyers, who had spent years on the case, all the other State's 
lawyers and their technical support staff were excluded from these 
proceedings. Though I am not a lawyer, what I have read of the 
settlement itself and the many reviews about it, the document reads 
like something that was dictated entirely by Microsoft's lawyers and 
provides a ``settlement'' overwhelmingly to Microsoft's 
benefit, and little to no long term benefit for anyone else.
    The settlement specifies an enforcement mechanism that for all 
practical purposes would be toothless. It specifies a three member 
committee to oversee the judgment. However, Microsoft would have 
influence over the selection of one ( if not two ) of the members. 
This is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. Further their 
authority would extend only to ``assisting in voluntary dispute 
resolution''. Worse, according to the settlement, non of their 
findings or recommendations could be used in court in enforcement 
proceedings nor would they even be allowed to report any of their 
findings or recommendations to the Courts or Congress.
    While it makes some attempts to address the issues related to 
the ``big 20'' OEMs, it does nothing for smaller OEMs, 
corporations, universities or smaller end users. Contracts such as 
MS's ``Enterprise Agreement'' are ignored. The Enterprise 
Agreement can provide sizable discounts on MS software and upgrades. 
However, the big catch to this agreement is that the company must 
use MS products instead of alternatives. Even in a healthy economy, 
the pressure to minimize expenses are great. In a less than ideal 
market, it only gets much worse. So, to take advantage of discounts 
in Windows & Office, one is forced to accept Outlook and 
Internet Explorer and reject Netscape Navigator and other 
alternative products. Potentially, the wording of the Enterprise 
Agreement might even be interpreted to prohibiting the use of Linux, 
BSD or some other non-MS PC desktop and server operating system. The 
combination of things like the EA and the propensity for Windows 
based applications to treat the presence of non-MS applications as a 
``problem'' that needs to be fixed, leads many corporate 
IT groups to give in and convert to ``pure MS'' desktops 
that excludes non-MS components.
    - The definitions of the terms ``Windows OS'', 
``API'', and ``Middleware'' specified in the 
settlement are so restrictive that future implementations and 
trivial derivations of major middleware and API components would be 
exempt from any restrictions. Further major current and imminent 
applications, APIs, and middleware products are completely ignored. 
.NET, the linchpin in Microsoft's effort to build an Internet 
equivalent to its Desktop domination, is completely ignored by the 
settlement. The .Net initiative has been public knowledge for a long 
time now, but there is no reference to it in the settlement. 
Likewise, the MS office suite is completely excluded. The single 
strongest weapon in Microsoft's arsenal for protecting the Windows 
Desktop monopoly has been, and continues to be, MS Office. Time and 
again, the number one reason given for having to use Windows on the 
Desktop is the need for compatibility with MS office documents and 
applications. Thus, it could easily be argued that MS Office 
constitutes a monopoly situation in its own right. Further, MS's 
frequent changes in document formats between revisions of the 
product forces all users to upgrade en masse to newer versions of 
Office ( and usually newer versions of Windows). This both further 
adds to MS's (prodigious) revenue stream and makes if very difficult 
( if not impossible) for third parties to create compatible 
products. The specifications for all MS Office documents and API 
interfaces must be made open and available in a timely fashion for 
this monopoly to be broken. Also, the many offshoots of Windows are 
ignored by the settlement. No mention is made of WindowsCE, Pocket 
PC, Tablet PC or X-BOX, which is really just a slightly stripped 
down PC running a variant of Windows. Each represents Microsoft's 
efforts to leverage its

[[Page 27912]]

Windows monopoly into other market areas. The Settlement displays 
numerous anti-``Open Source'' biases. Many experts agree, 
and the top executives at MS have essentially admitted, that Open 
Source is the single greatest threat to Microsoft's monopoly. The 
existence of operating systems like Linux and the BSD variants, 
applications and middleware products like Apache webservers, SAMBA 
file and print sharing have permitted many to reject Microsoft's 
Windows Desktop and Server OS platforms in favor of alternatives. 
Yet, the settlement threatens all of this. The settlement does 
nothing to prevent MS from retaliating against an OEM that ships a 
PC that is preloaded with only a non-MS operating system. Further, 
alternate Operating System vendors such as BE were ultimately driven 
out of business because OEMs refused to preload BeOS in addition to 
Windows. Their reason: fear for their license agreements with 
Microsoft. The way the settlement is worded, MS would be able to 
deny Open Source developers access to APIs, communication protocols 
and other documentation essential to maintaining compatibility with 
their Windows counterparts. The restrictions on document disclosure 
as they relate to ``encryption, authentication anti-
piracy'' and related issues as determined by Microsoft presents 
many opportunities for mischief on Microsoft's part. The settlement 
makes no references to restrictive licensing conditions such as: 
preventing the distribution of otherwise redistributable components 
when it is done ONLY for use by MS-based products and on MS-based 
Operating Systems, and explicitly forbids its distribution for use 
with open-source products and OSes.
    --The settlement does nothing to address Microsoft's use of 
its monopoly derived power and financial resources to push into new 
areas with the intent to claim a dominant position. Their huge cash 
horde ( by some recent reports in excess of 30 billion dollars ) 
puts them in a position to trivially crush a competitor in any new 
ventures.
    --With the the X-BOX, Microsoft is targeting the game 
console market. This system is essentially a slightly stripped-down 
PC running a variant of Windows. Reviewers of the system have said 
that it has features significantly beyond those of its competitors 
and is selling the units at a serious loss. This is in combination 
with a reported 500 million dollar ad campaign. At the same time 
Microsoft used its power to convince many musicians to provide their 
music for use in MS XBOX games for little or no financial 
compensation in exchange for mentioning of the band's name in the 
game. In most cases, one would have to dig into the bowels of the 
games to find out who provided the music. Normally, companies would 
pay tens of thousands for such music per game. ( see New York Times 
11/15/2001--THE POP LIFE; For Musicians, Microsoft's Xbox Is No 
Jackpot ) Recently, Microsoft announced that its next target will be 
the ``Gameboy'' handheld game market.
    --Microsoft for several years has been pushing to get cable 
and DSS providers to use MS-based set-top decoder boxes. In general, 
the providers have refused, fearing a repeat of MS's takeover of the 
PC. MS appears to now be using its financial muscle to buy its way 
into the settop market. It provided large sums of cash to help 
Comcast win its bid for AT&T's cable system. Recently, directly 
and through his Foundation, Gates purchased 500 million dollars 
worth of Cox Communication stocks. In both cases, it will be much 
harder for these cable companies to reject the replacement of set 
top boxes with those that are Microsoft-based.
    --Microsoft continues its push to dominate the Internet. 
.NET is Microsoft's latest attempt to redefine the Internet on its 
terms. This would extend its monopoly from the desktop to the 
Internet. Either by outright purchasing or dealmaking, Microsoft is 
forcing more and more dialup and DSL/cable end users to use MSN. At 
the same time, Warner Cable has complained that inherent 
incompatibilities in Windows XP prevents their high-speed cable 
systems from working with XP-based computers. This would not be the 
first time that Microsoft implemented incompatibilities with the 
express purpose of hindering a competitor ( the DR-DOS case ). By 
the use of EULAs or the explicit design of websites owned by 
Microsoft or its partners, non-MS browsers and Operating Systems are 
blocked from accessing various websites and services. The EULA for 
MSNBC's NewsAlert software only permits you to run the software on 
systems running a non-competing operating systems. It has been 
reported that Microsoft and its partners have, either intentionally 
by design or unintentionally by using an MS product, built websites 
that explicitly recognize connection attempts by Netscape/Mozilla 
clients and reject the connection. When the users changed the client 
identification to something else, the problem went away.
    --Microsoft's involvement in things like E-Books and 
Digital Rights Management also concern me. I am concerned that 
Microsoft will use its dominant positions to make these things only 
available on MS-compatible/approved products. For these and many 
other reasons, the proposed settlement, as currently presented and 
without major revisions, must be rejected. The alternative will lead 
to an even greater monopoly extending far beyond the PC Desktop and 
into many other aspects of our digitally-enabled world.
    Mayer Ilovitz
    New York, NY



MTC-00027023

From: Toby Austin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is nothing more than a 
convenient way for them to ``donate'' their own software 
to schools, thus increasing their market share. Please reconsider.
    Toby A S Austin



MTC-00027024

From: Carolyn Freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:47pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    If the CEOs of the internet ``competitive'' companies 
would quit crying and create instead, there would be sufficient for 
everyone. I cannot understand how the government who is supposed to 
represent all citizens can consider tying the hands of one company 
and call it competition. So much for hard work and creative effort. 
Hopefully I will still have the right to spend my money as I see fit 
to buy the product(s) I choose at the market place. Make a good 
product at a good price, the public will purchase it. The offer made 
by Microsoft to supply schools, etc. is terrific - not only will the 
children benefit, the government can get out of business 
manipulation. Why is success always penalized!!!



MTC-00027025

From: Toni Savage
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please also allow OEMs to configure MicroSoft software with any 
defaults a user would be able to change, ONLY so long as they 
specify to their customers exactly what it is that they changed. In 
other words, if they want to change the default home page to be 
their home page instead of MSN.com, they should be allowed to do so.
    Toni Savage
    196 Dean St.
    Brooklyn, NY 11217



MTC-00027026

From: Tim/Mary Irvin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:51pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Message
    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. Based on 
these facts, I respectfully request you to accept the terms of the 
settlement.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 27913]]

    Mary and Tim Irvin
    722 Poplar Drive
    Bellingham, WA.98226



MTC-00027027

From: JMyers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Especially now more than ever should one corporation hold a 
stranglehold on what is arguably the most important industry in the 
world?Especially a company whose record of security and shady 
business practices be allowed to run free to devour and destroy 
other companies.Microsoft makes Standard Oil look like a bunch of 
choir boys.The time is right for not a slap on the wrist-or worse 
yet help in controlling the education sector-but a comprehensive and 
severe crackdown on this company.It is time for Microsoft to be 
punished for their morally,ethically and I believe in some regards 
down-right criminal behavior.
    Thank you for listening,
    James F.Myers Jr.



MTC-00027028

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop badgering Microsoft. Admit once and for all that Bill Gates 
and his crew built a better mousetrap. Were it not for them, the 
common man wouldn't be enjoying the delights of computer ownership.
    I'm 78 and worked up from DOS 3.0 to Windows 98, and it didn't 
cost me an an arm and a leg. My grandchildren were literally weaned 
on my computors. Please exercise your authority on prosecuting the 
ENRON thieves and their cohorts.
    Andrew J. Herstel
    9035--28th Street
    Brookfield, IL 60513-1015
    708-485-2129
    e-mail [email protected]



MTC-00027031

From: Yaw Kordieh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Yaw Kordieh. I feel that Microsoft's decision of 
gaining monopoly power by preventing other software companies from 
distributing their software worldwide was wrong. Microsoft has 
always been successful promoting their software because most 
computers are pre-installed with their software, Windows when 
consumers first buy it. There hasn't been any competition from any 
other software as well. So the Microsoft software, Windows has been 
well known to people. I agree with the idea of a remedy because it 
won't allow Microsoft to gain monopoly power illegally and any other 
practices in the future. It also gives other software companies a 
chance to expand their software to other places in the world, which 
also creates competitiveness among the softwares. With the arrival 
of Netscape and Java, Microsoft felt that they both created a threat 
to their company because they had special applications that allowed 
them to run on most programs. Microsoft's decision of creating the 
Internet browser, Internet Explorer was a good idea because it gave 
people the chance to decide which Internet browser they wanted, 
instead of just accepting what they already had on their computer. 
So the actions that Microsoft took was unfair to other companies and 
to the consumers. I feel that if there were other companies that 
made software, then consumers can choose which program they would 
like to use.



MTC-00027032

From: -- --
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Comments Concerning the Microsoft Proposed Settlement,
    01/27/02
    Dear Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
    The anticompetitive and technically inaccurate settlement agreed 
to by the U.S. Justice Department is tainted and should be set aside 
as not in the public interest.
    I have over ten years experience of dealing with Microsoft 
closely and 20 years of experience developing software across 
multiple platforms. I am an expert at understanding software design. 
Microsoft has caused great harm to this country by limiting consumer 
choice and retarding innovation. A narrow settlement with middleware 
defined incorrectly will continue to harm consumers.
    Windows XP continues the Microsoft tactic of limiting consumer 
choice. How this is done is quite subtle. Microsoft bundles 
applications with the operating system. The consumer by default uses 
the Microsoft applications. This is because the consumer would have 
to make extra tedious efforts to use applications from other 
vendors. In contrast, the Microsoft applications like Passport and 
Instant Messaging are rudely in your face. Microsoft uses its PC 
operating system monopoly to leverage into unrelated businesses.
    The consumer has been further harmed by Microsoft amassing 
monopoly profits. In the final economic analysis, the consumer pays 
for product from other computer industry vendors. When those vendors 
have to pay Microsoft higher prices because of the monopoly, they 
are passed on to the consumer.
    Any settlement should restore consumer choice and competition to 
the PC software industry. As presently drafted, the proposed 
settlement is not much better than no settlement at all. Let's 
review some of the loopholes in the settlement.
    * III: Microsoft can still pay off cooperating OEM's that do 
Microsoft's bidding.
    * III.C.3: Too restrictive.
    * III.F.2: Microsoft continues to control ISV's software 
development.
    * III.G.1: Microsoft can continue to pay vendors to promote its 
software platform.
    * III.H.1: Users should be allowed to remove any application. 
Users should be able to remove any API's from the operating system 
(that could pose security risks).
    * III.I.5: In order for a vendor to obtain Microsoft's 
technology, the vendor must surrender intellectual property rights.
    * IV.B.10: This is an unconstitutional free speech restriction.
    * IV.D.4.d: TC members should not be excluded from the legal 
process. This is an attempt to silence witnesses.
    * V. Any settlement should be permanent.
    * VI.A: API's should include interfaces used by device drivers 
and the interfaces used by real middleware to call operating system 
services. API's are not just application programming interfaces.
    * VI.D: All OEM's should be covered, not just the top 20.
    * VI.K: Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows 
Messenger, and Outlook Express are APPLICATIONS, not middleware!
    * VI.Q: A personal computer can be a server. Server software 
should not be excluded from illegal monopoly maintenance behavior. A 
PC can be both a client and server at the same time and this is 
integral to Microsoft's architecture. I want to draw special 
attention to Section III.J.1.a.
    This section puts the security of this country at risk. At a 
minimum it need to be rewritten. Microsoft cannot be allowed to have 
a monopoly with respect to security software. Microsoft must be 
required to disclose security API's and documentation. This will 
enable competitors to provide add-on security solutions to 
Microsoft's historically insecure products.
    The proposed settlement is complex and subject to interpretation 
and will generate years of unending legal wrangling. This legal cost 
will further burden the computer industry and ultimately harm the 
consumer. In contrast, it would be very simple to create a clear cut 
settlement that would be easy for everyone to understand and not 
subject to interpretation. Such a settlement would even protect 
Microsoft stock holders. Unfortunately, because I deal with 
Microsoft as a software developer, I cannot reveal who I am, for 
fear of souring my relations with Microsoft. The opinions expressed 
are my own and do not represent the opinions of present or past 
employers.



MTC-00027033

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:55pm
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.

[[Page 27914]]

    Sincerely,
    Jeri-Ann McCauley
    4375 S. Atlanticv Ave #7
    New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169



MTC-00027034

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Is there any question that the settlement offered by the Bush 
administration and certain states was NOT in the public interest?
    Respectfully submitted,
    Charles I. Post



MTC-00027035

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    Frank Ehrenford
    39 Rolling Hills Drive
    Cody, WY 82414



MTC-00027036

From: Rich Latour
To: MICROSOFT ANTITRUST
Date: 1/27/02 6:01pm
Subject: Prosecute Ballmer and Microsoft For Illegal Lobbying
    I just read Kristi Heim's newpaper article in the San Jose 
Mercury News detailing claims by former senator John Tunney that 
Microsoft is once again acting illegally in inadequately disclosing 
lobbying efforts to influence the antitrust case against it.
    There are too many allegations of corruption at Microsoft. I 
request that a tough prosecutor be put in charge to get to the 
bottom of this issue and to prosecute those at Microsoft 
responsible. It is clearly in the public interest to send a message 
to Microsoft regarding lawful behavior. Put Mr. Ballmer and company 
in jail if necessary.
    Rich Latour



MTC-00027037

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    Jack Satterfield
    2902 S. Lea. Ave
    Roswell, NM 88201



MTC-00027039

From: Marv Norman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The attached personal letter contains my request that the DOJ 
conclude their efforts to settle the litigation with Microsoft.
    Best regards,
    Marvin G. Norman
 Marvin G. Norman
7950 Winchester Circle
Goleta, Ca., 93117
Tel: (805) 685-6341
Fax: (805) 685-6371

January 26,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing because I am a steadfast supporter of free market 
enterprise, and of Microsoft's freedom to dictate its own business 
practices in the pursuit of success. Therefore, I am urging you to 
finalize the settlement reached in November in your office's 
antitrust case against the company.
    The lawsuit was originated and continued by Microsoft 
competitors who tried to win market share via the court system. 
Those companies should have been more concerned with manufacturing 
the best product possible; however, the terms of the settlement will 
ensure that Microsoft gives them more of a shot to claim more of the 
market. Disclosing parts of Windows'' internal interfaces and 
no longer requiring computer makers to bundle other Microsoft 
products will give everyone a fair chance to come out ahead.
    I am not a Microsoft shareholder. I simply believe in their 
right to control their destiny, and as such, I implore you to settle 
the case at once.
    Sincerely,
    Marvin G. Norman



MTC-00027040

From: Ron and Me
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We fully support Microsoft in all of their endeavors. They are 
an excellent company and should be fully supported by the U. S. 
Government for what they have added to our economy.
    Sincerely
    Ron and Mary Ellen Harpster



MTC-00027041

From: Robert J Ball
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:07pm
Subject: Settlement
    I believe it is in the best interest of the public to finalize 
the settlement with Microsoft. Microsoft produces a product 
unmatched in quality and nothing should be done to limit access to 
such quality.
    RJ BALL



MTC-00027042

From: Steve Pogge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    Our country and its economy has suffered enough. Please approve 
this settlement and allow our country to move forward on those 
issues that truly threaten our freedoms such as terrorism.
    Thank you for your time and consideration,
    Steve Pogge



MTC-00027043

From: gamecuber13
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Justice Department-
    Regarding the decision on the Microsoft Case, I have some input 
which I hope will be of use to you in your final verdict. In my 
opinion, I believe that Microsoft should not be able to make a 
settlement in the case, by creating a monopoly, Microsoft is not 
only being an unfair business, but it is also, at the same time 
hurting the economy. By driving other companies to bankruptcy, the 
stock market is damaged overall since all the people who own the 
stocks of these companies lose their money and only the individuals 
who own Microsoft stocks benefit.
    Microsoft's strategy for beating other businesses is unfair as 
well. Microsoft has bundled their browser, Internet Explorer, with 
the computers sold by companies such as Dell, Gateway, and IBM. 
Therefore, the predominant operating system in use is Internet 
Explorer, proving the bundling scheme as an unfair advantage.
    Microsoft's strategy is similar to that of Industrial big 
businesses from the past in American History. J. Piermont Morgan 
owned one such of these monopolies. He was completely in Control of 
the Railroad and Iron businesses and came to acquire the Shipping 
industry as well. The main plan of companies owned by people like 
Morgan, Rockefeller and Carnegie was unfair. They would offer 
companies in other areas where there products were not the majority 
a small amount of shares (worth less than their company's value) for 
them to give over their business to the monopolies. If these 
companies refused, the monopolistic companies would reduce their 
prices in the

[[Page 27915]]

particular area where these products were sold and sell their 
products there for cheaper than it costed to make them; this was not 
a great loss because the monopolies were so rich that they could 
afford to do so. Using this method, they would drive other smaller 
and weaker companies out of business.
    This strategy is similar to Microsoft's. Theodore Dressier wrote 
an excellent novel, ``The Financier'', which describes 
monopolies and big business over powering weaker and smaller 
businesses. One excerpt from ``The Financier'' concerns a 
short tale about a lobster and a squid. Both are placed in a tank. 
The squid is placed in as prey for the more powerful and armed 
lobster. The lobster, symbolic of the big businesses and monopolies, 
well armed with its pincers, is perfectly capable of destroying the 
squid, which represents smaller businesses which have no way to 
survive against more powerful business. In the story, the author 
tells of how the Lobster would daily try to capture the squid and 
the squid would always escape, but part of it would get cut of by 
the lobster. Then, finally, one day, the lobster catches the squids. 
From this experience, the narrator tells us of a conclusion he 
draws, ``Things lived on each other-that was it. Lobsters lived 
on squids and other things. What lived on lobsters?''
    Dressier describes how powerful big businesses are. This method 
is nearly identical to Microsoft's ruthless actions toward other 
companies.
    To make Microsoft atone for its misdemeanors, I would suggest 
breaking the company apart into to smaller companies. Another option 
would be to force Microsoft to stop bundling their computer software 
with computer hardware. I hope that my opinion has helped in your 
arriving at a decision in this case.
    A Student Citizen,
    Vikram Srinivasan



MTC-00027044

From: josh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From the beginning of the era of the Personal Computer, 
Microsoft has led a virtual monopoly in the market of Operating 
Systems. They have used various nefarious business practices in 
order to maintain their foothold in the market. Microsoft has a 
tendency to embrace technologies, extend them, then subsequently 
extinguish the competition. When Microsoft first released Windows 
95, it came packaged with a program for Microsoft's new online 
service, The Microsoft Network. The icon for this program was put on 
a prime location on the desktop. Popular online services such as AOL 
and Compuserve, which freely distribute their client software, were 
nowhere to be found on the desktop, but were buried on the CD.
    Another clearer example is the integration of Microsoft's web 
browsing software Internet Explorer with the Windows 98 operating 
system. When your browser appears in over 90% of the installed base 
of computer systems around the world, there is little chance for any 
sort of competition. This is what competitor Netscape argued, and 
this is one of the issues that the Justice Department takes task 
with.
    Personally, I don't think the DOJ settlement will hurt Microsoft 
much. Their foothold in the computer market is already too strong. 
This is in part because ``the damage already done'', 
people are very used to using Microsoft branded software and will 
not want to take the time to learn something else. Computer makers 
will still bundle Microsoft Windows with their machines because it 
is what the customer demands. This case has effectively dealt a weak 
blow to Microsoft in image, but not in strength. The software 
juggernaut that is Microsoft will continue to dominate in the future 
because its roots are too deep. And if left unchecked, they will 
continue embracing, extending, and extinguishing.



MTC-00027045

From: Betty Holt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:13pm
Subject: hphphp1Microsoft Settlement
11 512 68th Ave Court NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 27, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am taking this opportunity to express my concern about the 
current situation in the US vs. Microsoft lawsuit and ] certainly 
hope these public comments make a difference in the final outcome of 
the litigation. For starters, Microsoft had no reason to be attacked 
by the government in the first place, but unfortunately, lawyers and 
lobbyists have done a good job of keeping the American people paying 
millions of dollars on behalf of an accusation that should have no 
basis in this country.
    The proposed settlement by the District Court should be accepted 
and implemented as soon as possible so that this country can see 
Microsoft thrive again for the American people and the American 
economy. The world is always looking for new, comprehensible and 
affordable software to facilitate a faster, more efficient business 
environment, and no other corporation has done this as well as 
Microsoft has. Why should we criminalize them for their success and 
their ingenuity that has put America on top of the IT industry?
    [ cannot reiterate enough how much I, along with millions of 
other Americans, want to see this litigation over with. It is the 
consumers who will be further affected by this legal action.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00027046

From: Adrienne (038) Steve Osborn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Recommend further litigation against Microsoft in the interests 
of fair competition and true capitalistic economics :
    1. Microsoft should be fined severely for attempting to develop 
a monopoly in software, as proven in court and so adjudged.
    2. Microsoft should have the Operating System development 
separate from the applications development, by fair application of 
anti-trust law. Two separate entities, in other words.
    3. Microsoft's OS code should be made available to all software 
developers to allow competitive applications development.
    Stephen M. and Adrienne G. Osborn
    26 N Sunset Drive
    Camano island,
    WA 98282-8607
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00027047

From: David Jaber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I had a few concerns about the Microsoft Settlement I'd like to 
register. Simply:
    1. The proposed settlement is not in the public interest. It 
ignores the all-important applications barrier to entry which must 
be reduced or eliminated. Any settlement or order needs to provide 
ways for consumers to run any of the 70,000 existing Windows 
applications on any other operating system.
    2. Consumers need a la carte competition and choice so they, not 
Microsoft, decide what products are on their computers. The 
settlement must provide ways for any combination of non-Microsoft 
operating systems, applications, and software components to run 
properly with Microsoft products.
    3. The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States are 
in the public interest and absolutely necessary, but they are not 
sufficient without the remedies mentioned above.
    4. The court must hold public proceedings under the Tunney Act, 
and these proceedings must give citizens and consumer groups an 
equal opportunity to participate, along with Microsoft's competitors 
and customers.
    Please change the decision to reflect this. I appreciate the 
opportunity to comment.



MTC-00027048

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    Please give consideration the my follow ing conclustions 
concerning the settlement of the Microsoaft anti trust case:
    1. This case was instigated by competitors of Microsoft, namely 
Sun-microsystems, Oracle, and AOL. The pricipal owners, having made 
their billions, proceeded to spend vast sums lobbying for the anti 
trust case against Microsoft.
    2. As the case began, the stock market began its decline, 
cuminating in the present lower level. I believe the American public 
lost confidence in the entrepeneuerial form of business that has led 
to the success of Microsoft. The fact that the govenment has pursued 
this case smacks dangerously of Socialism.
    3. The American public has been forced to not only carry the 
burden of the court costs for this case, but has endured loss of 
personal

[[Page 27916]]

income, resulting in the loss of tax revenues to both state and 
federal governments. Has anyone come up with the combined figure of 
personal income loss and government tax revenue loss? It must be 
staggering!
    4.I personally have found no one agreeing with the Attorney 
General's statement that Microsoft is not good for the consumer. On 
the contrary, those I have polled have only favorable comments for 
Microsoft products and pricing. Interestingly, when the Attorney 
General of Connecticut was putting a spin on Microsoft, he was asked 
if he used Microsoft software. He admitted to using same both in his 
office and at home. Surely, if Microsoft is so bad for the consumer, 
he, of all people, could have found other products to purchase and 
use.
    5. The timing of the new suit brought by AOL against Microsoft 
seems a little suspect.
    6. 41 out of 50 states have agreed to the settlement between 
Microsoft and the government. How can 9 states dictate to 41?
    Thankyou for your time and attention to my conclusions.
    Yours truly,
    Ken Apland



MTC-00027049

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To- The Courts,and those whom are Concerned-
    I am an American citizen 82 yrs. young,that loves computers,I 
have most of the lastest devices on my PC.while I dont pretend that 
I know how,to use all of these,programs etc.I do know that without 
companies such as Microsoft,we as a nation, would be hurting,in this 
field of endeaver.
    You are inthe process of finalizing a settlement ,for which I as 
a Senior, believe is a reasonable compromise,that will enhance the 
ability of all concerned,to access the internet and use innovative 
products,for more enjoyment.
    I know a little about techincal progress,having been a military 
pilot for many years,and its a good thing that there is 
competition,if there wasn't ,perhaps I would not be here today>
    Competition in this situation,seems to want results,based on 
what the Courts will decide,rather than their own efforts.Only in 
America,it seems,that,one, or a Company ,is punished for their 
success.
    It would appear that this has dragged long enough,we have a 
compromised settlement,please dont allow those who state,in the 
public interest, to muddy up this settlement !
    I'm one of the,public,and as a Tax Payer,I strongly believe this 
should be settled,asap...
    Thanks for(Tunney Act) for allowing me to comment.
    Very Truly Yours,
    Joseph Burkhardt ([email protected])
    1590 E-11th No st.
    Mountain Home ID 83647



MTC-00027050

From: Alan Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice
Washington, DC
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a taxpayer and citizen of this country, I am appalled by the 
impending settlement with Microsoft. The software giant has 
repeatedly violated anti-trust laws in its merciless drive for not 
just market dominanace, but for virtual monopoly status, and this 
proposed settlement will do little to deter Microsoft's predatory 
behavior. I am absolutely opposed on grounds of the public interest 
and open competition in the marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Alan Campbell
    170 Crescent Road
    Athens, Georgia 30607
    706/208-0630
    SS#258-74-7766
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027051

From: Bruce Horn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I believe that the proposed antitrust settlement with Microsoft 
is tremendously inadequate. Microsoft has been found guilty of 
extremely serious violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the 
proposed settlement will just encourage further violations.
    I have worked in the computer industry for 25 years, and have 
held positions at Xerox PARC and Apple Computer, among other 
companies. In my opinion Microsoft's behavior has held back 
computing progress and has cost the entire country hundreds billions 
of dollars in lost productivity. Personally I have witnessed 
Microsoft's repeated theft of Apple's intellectual property, for 
which they escaped punishment. The proposed settlement would 
preserve Microsoft's monopoly, would not restore competition, and at 
the same time would allow Microsoft to keep its ill-gotten gains 
from the past decade of monopolistic behavior. In addition, it would 
encourage and help Microsoft to establish yet another monopoly in 
the Internet space.
    Perhaps most chilling is Microsoft's plan to capture essential 
personal and private information on their proprietary databases, and 
force you to run all on-line transactions through them. They also 
plan to monitor everyone's computing activities and charge for them 
on a rental basis. This must not happen. There must be alternatives 
available that allow people to use whatever operating system they 
wish, and whatever applications they wish, on whatever platform they 
wish. This includes running Microsoft applications on non-Windows 
platforms. Any behavior by Microsoft to attempt to control the 
Internet space must be prohibited. The proposed settlement is 
seriously flawed and must not be enacted.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Horn
    Chief Technical Officer, Marketocracy, Inc.
    Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546-1692



MTC-00027052

From: Matthew Tubbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Honorable Court:
    As a citizen of the United States and experienced computer 
professional of several years, I have seen the damage that Microsoft 
has inflicted on the computer industry and consumers with its 
blatant violations of antitrust law. While I feel that the proposed 
settlement is a step in the right direction, I think that there are 
a few items that need to be addressed:
    I. The proposed final judgment excludes open source competitors. 
Open source operating systems such as Linux and open source projects 
such as Wine, Apache, and Samba offer consumers real choice because 
of their quality, stability, speed and security. For these reasons, 
open source software and operating systems are a viable competitor 
to Microsoft, and should be treated as such in the wording of the 
proposed final judgment. Specifically, Microsoft should be required 
to disclose the Windows API's to open source groups, as well as 
documentation on communication protocols.
    II. In addition to API's and communication protocols, Microsoft 
should be required to fully disclose its Microsoft Office binary 
file format specifications to competing organizations. Releasing 
these file formats would remove the barrier for entry to the office 
software market, greatly benefiting consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew R Tubbs



MTC-00027053

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:20pm
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,
    DON FEDRIGON
    PO BOX 962
    ELK RAPIDS, MI 49629



MTC-00027054

From: Michael Blakeley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:22pm

[[Page 27917]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed DOJ-Microsoft settlement is a bad 
idea. It doesn't do enough to penalize Microsoft for past anti-
competitive practices, and doesn't do enough to ensure against 
future anti-competitive practices by Microsoft. Also, the proposed 
settlement does nothing to redress damages suffered by consumers as 
a result of Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
    In my view, breaking up Microsoft into several smaller 
corporations, would be a better solution, along with substantial 
monetary awards to Sun and Netscape. Failing that, substantial 
monetary awards should be accompanied by strict regulation of 
Microsoft as a public-interest entity.
    Thank you for your time.
    Michael Blakeley
    Foster City, CA
    self-employed Internet consultant



MTC-00027055

From: CLIFFORD WOOLFOLK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement http://www.bidville.com/
myads.asp?id=cliffordii
190 Oakridge Drive
Berkey, OH 43504-
January12,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion on the settlement reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice in November of last 
year. As I understand it, Microsoft has agreed to a wide range of 
restrictions and obligations that would allow other computer makers 
more ease of competition. I believe Bill Gates has worked hard to 
accomplish what he has, and if Microsoft has so much influence, then 
more power to Mr. Gates. Unfortunately, there are those who 
disagree.
    It has come to my attention that there are nine states now that 
are in opposition to the terms of the agreement reached in the 
antitrust case. They are seeking to extend the suit and undermine 
the terms of the settlement. This is ridiculous. Microsoft did not 
get off with just a slap on the wrist. They have agreed not only to 
license their Windows operating system to the 20 largest computer 
makers, but they have also granted these computer makers rights to 
configure Windows so that non-Microsoft programs can be promoted 
within its operating system. Microsoft has agreed to terms that 
exceeded even the bounds of the anti-trust case, and I am of the 
opinion that they have been more than fair.
    Mr. Ashcroft, I do not believe that this suit should continue. 
The nine states that currently oppose the terms of settlement have 
lost sight of justice and have become vengeful. The Department of 
Justice has no right to mete out vengeance. I do not think the 
matter should be further pursued.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret Woolfork



MTC-00027056

From: Bill Zaumen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:27pm
Subject: Comments on Proposed Settlement
    While I have to wonder if a full breakup of Microsoft is not the 
only effective remedy, the proposed settlement is inadequate even in 
what it tries to do.
    1. The settlement treats consumers as second-class citizens. For 
example, on page 6, it prevents Microsoft's software from 
automatically altering an OEM's configuration without first waiting 
14 days and asking the user for permission. Nothing, however, tells 
them to similarly respect a user's configuration---one set by 
the user regardless of what the OEM did.
    2. It is ineffective in some respects. For instance, while it 
allows Microsoft to ask a user if he or she would like to change a 
configuration and requires that all options be fairly presented to 
the user, it does not prevent the obvious tactic: to badger the user 
to change the settings to ones Microsoft desires and then say 
nothing after a user does that. Since with enough repeated tries, a 
user will eventually click an unintended option, the result will be 
to move users to Microsoft products whether the users want to do 
that or not.
    3. Under ``III Prohibited Conduct,'' the settlement 
prevents Microsoft from retaliating against an OEM that includes 
both a Microsoft OS and some other OS. Other provisions deal with 
dual booting. Nowhere does it say, however, that Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against an OEM that provides customers the option of 
obtaining a computer without any Microsoft OS at all. I really have 
to wonder about this. A while ago, I read that Dell was again 
selling Linux systems. When I checked Dell's web site, it contained 
a page with links to Linux systems for the federal government, 
businesses, and businesses and small offices. Of these three links, 
two were broken. The only one that functioned was the one for the 
U.S. government. When you found something about a system were you 
could run Linux, and clicked on a link, you'd be taken to a windows-
only page. I think it is apparent that Dell is discouraging 
customers from buying Linux systems. With the whole PC industry 
having serious difficulties attracting customers, I've really got to 
wonder why anyone would throw customers away. One explanation for 
this behavior could be pressure from Microsoft. As a consumer, I 
want protection against that (regardless of whether or not this is 
what is going on in Dell's case).
    4. The settlement has a loophole about disclosing APIs if that 
would compromise security, digital rights management, anti-virus 
technology, etc. It is well known that security through obscurity is 
no security at all. This loophole will not protect computer systems, 
but it will provide Microsoft an excuse for divulging nothing about 
APIs or anything else.
    I would strongly recommend starting from scratch and proposing a 
settlement that would actually do something to protect the public 
and other businesses.
    Regards,
    William T. Zaumen
    912 Clara Drive
    Palo Alto, CA 94303
PS as a disclosure, I work for one of Microsoft's competitors. My 
comments above are personal ones.



MTC-00027057

From: David Stansell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:28pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    Hi,
    I would just like to complain about the proposed MS settlement. 
The idea seems to be that Microsoft is legally entitled to bribe the 
only market segment that to date it has not 
dominated--education.
    It makes no sense to me. I think it is very important that a 
firm like MS should be treated as any other otherwise people will 
continue to lose faith in the government and cynicism will prevail.
    MS is not an evil company, but it does what it can get away 
with. I would be grateful if you could play your part in refocusing 
the efforts of this group of talented people towards competing by 
producing better goods rather than doing so by throwing its 
commercial and political weight around.
    There is no doubt in my mind that this will enhance, rather than 
reduce, the effectiveness of the US economy--read the recent 
articles in the ``economist'' for one of the most unbiased 
assessments to date.
    Thanking you in advance,
    David Stansell.



MTC-00027058

From: Thomas P Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sirs:
    I am a Senior Citizen and have followed and used Microsoft 
products for many, many years. In many cases there were 
alternatives, but Microsoft was the choice.
    I urge you to accept the offered settlement. It appears to me 
that continuation will benefit only a few with special interests and 
will delay Microsoft in their efforts to make computers an even 
better and more desirable product.
    Respectfully,
    Thomas P. Larson
    Normal, IL 61761
    McLean county



MTC-00027059

From: Dennis Moon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    More than enough time, energy, and tax dollars have been spent 
on the Microsoft antitrust case. I have never believed Microsoft to 
be guilty of anything other than being a superior competitor in what 
I believe and hope is still a free market.
    I am an information systems professional with over fifteen years 
of experience integrating Microsoft products, operating systems, and 
developing application with their tools. I have come to appreciate 
how superior their products work together to create robust and 
innovative applications used to facilitate the improvement of 
corporate business processes.

[[Page 27918]]

    As a consumer, I find the prices for their software and 
operating systems to be very fair and much less costly to purchase 
and implement than most of their competitors. In fact, over the 
years Microsoft has had to substantially increase the cost of their 
development tools and server projects simply to attain the 
perception of the legitimacy for their products within the corporate 
world. If it were not for the fact that Microsoft competitors sell 
equivalent software products for many more times than the prices at 
which Microsoft could sell them and still make a profit, Microsoft 
products would cost even less than they do today.
    I greatly appreciate the fact that Microsoft continually adds to 
the value of their operating systems by integrating new technologies 
into the code base, thus minimizing the need to spend additional 
precious dollars to obtain the latest innovations and increased 
capabilities.
    I am appalled by their competitors attempts to beat them in the 
court room when they can not do so in the open market. This 
frivolous lawsuit has served only to increase the cost of Microsoft 
products as well as the cost of their competitors products.
    Microsoft has agreed on the terms of the settlement with the 
Department of Justice. Please end this once and for all.
    Dennis M. Moon



MTC-00027061

From: Willie Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please be advised that we support the settlement that has been 
reached in the U.S. vs Microsoft as fair. We have also faxed a 
letter to you to that effect.
    James R. Smith
    Willie Smith



MTC-00027062

From: Teri DeMatteo
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/27/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Teri DeMatteo
9703 Benner Road
Johnstown, OH 43031-9106

January 27, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Teri DeMatteo



MTC-00027063

From: Geoffrey Broadwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am a user of, and a software developer for, freely available 
operating systems such as Linux and the BSD variants of Unix. I have 
read and agree with Dan Kegel's analysis of the Proposed Final 
Judgment at: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html.
    However, I feel that Mr. Kegel's analysis, in its detail, loses 
some of the overall flavor of how a free / open source software user 
and developer would view the case.
    As a free software user, a few issues are important to me:
    * I must be able to read, write, and edit documents and other 
data complying with all standards and de facto standards in use in 
the corporate world or the Internet at large.
    * I must have access to programs that interoperate with all 
standard and de facto standard protocols (and all clients, servers, 
and peers implementing those protocols) in use in the corporate 
world or the Internet at large.
    * I must be able to use entirely freely available software to 
perform these functions. This requires both that barriers to the 
development of such software be low, and that artificial 
restrictions to their use, such as unfairly restrictive licensing 
terms, unclear patent infringement issues, and the like, be removed.
    As a free software developer, different but related issues are 
important:
    * The free software community must have unfettered access to 
complete, accurate, and timely documentation for all data formats in 
common use in the corporate world or the Internet at large.
    * The free software community must have unfettered access to 
complete, accurate, and timely documentation for all protocols in 
common use in the corporate world or the Internet at large, along 
with documentation for known variances of commonly used clients, 
servers, and peers from the expected and / or standard protocol 
behavior.
    * For cases in which use of, implementation of, or 
interoperability with an API is necessary (in the broadest sense), 
similar access to complete, accurate, and timely documentation for 
that API must also exist.
    * Test suites that can be used to show compliance or 
noncompliance of an implementation to these documents must exist, 
suitable both to test that competitive implementations perform 
properly, and possibly more importantly, to test that the 
documentation is an accurate reflection of the true behavior of the 
original implementation(s) that made use of, or provided, said data 
formats, protocols, and / or APIs.
    * Restrictions to development or use of compliant or 
interoperable software for any data format, protocol, or API, must 
be minimized. In particular, license restrictions that limit the use 
of a program, data format, API, or protocol inclusively or 
exclusively with regard to certain operating systems, license terms 
for other software in the user's or developer's computing 
environment, competing software implementations, etc., must be 
disallowed.
    In addition, any components or data files that all compliant or 
interoperable software implementations must distribute to be deemed 
compliant or interoperable, must allow such distribution by other 
implementations, for installation in any software environment that a 
user or developer sees fit.
    * Hidden restrictions to development or use of competitive 
software, such as the status of patents or pending patents whose 
applicability to relevant data formats, protocols, and / or APIs is 
unclear, must be dealt with in good faith. For example, no developer 
or vendor of software should be allowed to threaten that use of 
competing software ``might'' infringe 
``certain'' patents held by the developer or vendor or any 
of their partners.
    For cases where a developer or vendor can definitively claim 
that unlicensed use of a competing product making use of, 
implementing, or interoperating with, any data format, protocol, or 
API, would constitute infringement of a patent they own or control, 
such patent must be licensable under terms that would not be onerous 
to developers or users in the free software community. Per-seat 
licensing, licensing that requires large payments, licensing that 
involves non-disclosure agreements, and licensing that requires 
specific action by any person or entity other than the initial 
developers of the competing software, are all instances of onerous 
terms that must not be allowed to stand.
    All of these comments have been generic, without reference to 
the specific case and judgment at hand, but I hope it is clear that 
many of the concerns that I list above have not been adequately 
addressed by the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. 
Microsoft Corp.
    Other analysis and commentary, such as Mr. Kegel's work linked 
above, offer specific possible improvements to the Proposed Final 
Judgment that will address some of these concerns. When taking these 
suggestions into account during revision of the proposal, please 
also consider whether the various suggestions go far enough to 
adequately address my concerns as a user and a developer from the 
community at large. While I believe that all software developers and 
vendors should be held accountable for how they address or fail to 
address these concerns, it is especially important to require this 
of Microsoft, since Microsoft maintains a monopoly position for 
implementations of

[[Page 27919]]

a great many standards and de facto standards.
    Thank you in advance for your consideration,
    Geoffrey Broadwell
    Free Software User and Developer
    San Francisco Bay Area, California



MTC-00027064

From: John. Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Letter
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft-
    Attached is a letter urging your support for a speedy settlement 
in the Microsoft case.
    Thanks in advance for your action in this matter
    Sincerely,
    John Anderson, ceo
    6 Sigma Leadership Corporation
    4929 Canterwood Drive NW
    Gig Harbor, WA 98332
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have personally founded six small businesses, each providing 
software and related services to companies and consumers. Also, I 
have worked for five of America's largest businesses, performing 
turn-around leadership to help restore them to competitive health. I 
know what it means to compete here in America, where 
entrepreneurship and a free market economy have historically been 
protected by our government. I think it is a shame that the previous 
administration punished successful entrepreneurship and stifled 
creativity--and has left your department to bat cleanup. The 
Microsoft antitrust suit is the perfect example of this. I am 
appalled that the negotiated settlement has been rejected by half of 
the plaintiff states--without even giving it a trial 
period--and thus letting six months of negotiations go to 
waste. I think before rejection is considered, it is necessary to 
give the settlement a chance.
    It is a disgrace that the settlement should be delayed to give 
Microsoft's opponents a bigger piece of the pie. I think the 
settlement is fair as it stands. Microsoft has agreed not to enter 
into any contracts that would require a third party to distribute or 
endorse Microsoft products either exclusively or at a fixed 
percentage. Microsoft also plans to design future versions of 
Windows so that the operating system will support non- Microsoft 
software. I believe that these terms are more than reasonable. In 
the long run, I believe the economy and the consumer would benefit 
from a speedy settlement. I urge you to give your support to the 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    John Anderson
    4929 Canterwood Drive NW
    Gig Harbor, WA 98332
    6 Sigma Leadership Corporation
    Gig Harbor, WA 98332
    John Anderson
    President



MTC-00027065

From: Lawrence Person
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To all it may concern,
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad deal 
for computer users, for the computer industry, and for the nation as 
a whole. It does nothing to address Microsoft's predatory and 
monopolistic tactics, nothing to address the fact that it's blithely 
broken previous consent decrees and defied court orders, and nothing 
to provide relief for companies and consumers who have been harmed 
by these practices. It should be rejected and far more stringent 
financial and structural penalties imposed.
    Despite their slogan, Microsoft has achieved it's current 
position not by ``innovation'' or hard work so much as by 
imitation (Apple) or outright theft (Stack Technologies) of the 
innovations of others. It used strong-arm tactics, sharp practice 
and predatory pricing to establish it's monopoly in operating 
systems, then illegally used that same monopoly to grab equally 
compelling strangleholds on other areas of the software industry. At 
best Microsoft is a sandlot bully, threatening others with its 
monopoly power to get its own way. At worse it's a third world 
dictator, knowing it's above the law (witness its boldfaced 
violation of its first consent decree, and how it lied, repeatedly, 
in court) with the firm knowledge that it's too powerful to be 
punished.
    A company truly dedicated to innovation would not wait two years 
to address the myriad security vulnerabilities of Windows and 
Outlook. If a different component on Ford trucks were to blow up and 
be recalled every week, Ford would be out of business very quickly 
indeed. If Microsoft did not wield such monopoly power, it would not 
be able to get away with selling such defective products.
    Microsoft has proven again and again that consent decrees are 
entirely inadequate to stop its predatory practices. Only harsh, 
structural and lasting penalties will be able break it's monopoly 
power and return real competition to the markets it illegally 
dominates.
    For penalties which would truly address Microsoft's monopoly 
power, punish it for past transgressions, and provide real relief to 
the victims of it's illegal actions, I propose the following:
    1. Microsoft should be levied a $10 billion fine. Half of this 
money should be earmarked for the DOJ and state attorneys general to 
pay for the cost of prosecuting Microsoft, and to pay the cost of 
future oversight and enforcement, and half should be returned to the 
consumers and companies harmed by Microsoft's predatory practices.
    2. The source code for all Microsoft products released through 
1999 should be released in their entirety and made available to the 
public to be used by anyone to create their own versions of Windows, 
Office, etc. without paying royalties to Microsoft. This would also 
provide relief from Microsoft's monopolistic practice of using 
``embrace and extend,'' i.e., making it's products 
intentionally incompatible with established computing standards for 
the sole purpose of using it's illegal monopoly to erect barriers to 
competition. With the source code readily available, it would be a 
simple matter both to engineer compatibility to Microsoft's 
``enhancements,'' and to recompile Microsoft programs to 
adhere to open computing standards.
    3. All the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to all 
shipping Microsoft products should be published and made freely 
available. This would prevent Microsoft's anti-competitive tactic of 
leveraging it's Windows monopoly through the use 
``secret'' APIs in Windows that only Microsoft programmers 
can use to enhance their other product lines.
    4. Microsoft should be split into no less than four separate 
companies: One responsible for Windows, a second for Office, a third 
for Internet Explorer, Back Office, Outlook, and all it's other 
Internet-related software, and a fourth for everything else (X-Box, 
WebTV, etc.). However, source code for all of Microsoft's currently 
shipping products should be distributed to each of these companies, 
with each having the ability to reuse or sublicense such code. This 
would create many competing products in segments of the market 
previously dominated by Microsoft, to the great benefit of 
consumers. These companies would also be barred from merging with 
each other or sharing directors for at least ten years.
    5. The above companies would have one year to plug all known 
security holes in Windows and Outlook. After that period, they would 
be made financially liable for any economic damage such 
vulnerabilities in their software cost customers who had all current 
security patches installed but were still victimized by hackers or 
viruses.
    6. The MS Office spinoff would be required to produce 
simultaneous versions of Office for the most recent release of Mac 
OS and Linux, at price parity with the Windows version, for a period 
of five years.
    7. A government oversight board would be created with the 
authority to unilaterally impose fines, order remedies, change 
contracts, and release source code in order to implement the 
judgement.
    This is a very radical remedy, and one I do not suggest lightly. 
In fact, I consider myself to be a Libertarian, one who believe that 
government should remain small and interfere in the free market only 
under the direst circumstances. However, one fundamental 
precondition for a free market is that those competing in it must 
obey the rule of law. Microsoft has shown, again and again, that it 
is willing to break and flout the law for it's own benefit, and to 
maintain it's illegal monopoly power. If Microsoft's earlier 
predatory practices had been curbed or punished when the first 
occurred, the government would not be faced with these vexing 
antitrust issues. But now that it has reached this point, serious 
structural remedies are the only solution. Microsoft has proven time 
and time again that it will not stop abusing it's monopoly power. 
It's now up to the courts eliminate that monopoly.
    Lawrence Person,
    Austin, Texas,
    Science Fiction Writer

[[Page 27920]]

    Lawrence Person
    [email protected]
    Nova Express Web Site: http://www.sflit.com/novaexpress



MTC-00027066

From: Andrew Wildenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: Andrew Wildenberg
    To the Department of Justice, Antitrust division:
    I would like to express my strong objection the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment (RPFJ) in US v. Microsoft. It is a settlement riddled 
with loopholes and ambiguities. It offers nothing that will 
`unfetter a market', `terminate the illegal 
monopoly', or `ensure that there remain no practices 
likely to result in monopolization in the future'' but will 
instead afford Microsoft new, court-sanctioned, ways to extend its 
monopoly and discourage competition and innovation in the industry.
    I am an instructor of Computer Science at the State University 
of New York at Stony Brook. I also have extensive experience as a 
software developer in industry and a private contractor. I regularly 
use Microsoft products professionally and privately. My main 
operating system is Microsoft Windows 2000, although I regularly use 
Mac OS, Solaris, FreeBSD, HP-UX and Linux in my work.
    One area of particular concern is the section of definitions in 
the RPFJ that relate to APIs and Middleware. The definition of API 
is given as follows:
    ``Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)'' means 
the 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.
    The important point is that this definition specifies only a 
small portion of the interface as being relevant to the RPFJ. 
Specifically, interfaces called internally by the operating system 
itself are exempt, as are interfaces called by other Microsoft 
software such as the Office suite.
    In the past Microsoft has regularly changed common definitions 
within the computer science literature to suit the whims of its 
litigation. Most recently it argued that Internet Explorer was in 
fact an inseparable part of the core operating system. While that 
particular program has been addressed by this particular 
decree's definition of middleware, there is no protection that 
future applications programs won't be relabeled as either 
`core OS'' or `applications'' In either case, 
APIs used by these new components can lawfully be withheld from 3rd 
party developers.
    Middleware and Microsoft Middleware is defined in several parts, 
but important ones include:
    part K1: ``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''
    While it is good to name specific products as middleware, for 
the most part, the ones chosen are all technology that Microsoft has 
already supplanted: Outlook Express will soon be replaced by 
Outlook, Windows Messenger by .NET services, and the Microsoft JVM 
by C#. Because those three products already exist at this time, 
it can be argued that the decree has specifically excluded them from 
its definition. The phrase `and their successors'' is a 
troublesome one, given Microsoft culture and programming practices. 
Microsoft is known for leading the industry in code re-use. A code 
analysis comparing Windows 2000 software to its middleware would 
show a large portion of it had been borrowed from the core OS. In 
such a culture, source code can not be the basis for determining the 
lineage of software: either everything will be related (too 
generous) or nothing will be related (too restrictive). If, on the 
other hand, `functionality'' is the basis for lineage, 
then the picture is more complex: Is Windows 2000 a successor to 
Windows 3.1 or a completely new and unrelated product? If new, when 
did the new product become new? Under what definition will the 
innovation be measured and what threshold will distinguish 
`new'' from `extended'?
    part 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 claim allows Microsoft to arbitrarily change APIs at any 
time, and not disclose them to developers. The computer industry is 
notorious for manipulating release numbers, and for those numbers 
not adequately measuring when a release is `major'' or 
not. Using this ability to change APIs, it would be possible for 
Microsoft to sabotage competing products, as it did during the Dr-
DOS case, by manipulating the APIs in a way designed to break the 
competing products. Since a competing product must be able to run on 
all versions of Microsoft middleware, such a change in API would 
mean a huge advantage to Microsoft's in-house development 
teams.
    Furthermore, restrictions on which APIs released provide other 
methods for Microsoft to impede 3rd party development. Specifically, 
by the RPFJ, Microsoft can not be required 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; ... Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any 
license of any API, Documentation or Communications Protocol related 
to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement 
mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party 
intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product 
to any person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) 
has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful 
violation of intellectual property rights, (b) has a reasonable 
business need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol 
for a planned or shipping product, (c) meets reasonable, objective 
standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity 
and viability of its business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own 
expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or 
Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by 
Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with 
Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which 
specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of 
the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
    Microsoft has begun a push to become the most secure operating 
system in the world. Indeed Bill Gates has said that security should 
be the company's top priority and that it should be embedded at the 
most basic levels of the operating system. If Microsoft follows 
through on this, it could reasonably argue that it could not release 
the majority of APIs because they were related to security.
    In past statements Microsoft has emphasized future work 
integrating digital rights management into its OS. A reasonable 
implementation of this would be to have the OS automatically check 
for digital rights every time that a file is opened. Again, by the 
same logic, it could decline to release the API for opening a file, 
arguably one of the most basic APIs in an operating system.
    Furthermore, the restrictions on potential licensees require a 
large amount of disclosure to Microsoft, including the disclosure of 
company confidential information to a designated agent of Microsoft. 
Microsoft is allowed to set arbitrary standards for using the 
protocols without regard to what is reasonable. Microsoft is allowed 
to set arbitrary standards for what constitutes a business. In the 
non-Microsoft Middleware Product definition, one of the standards is 
that a million copies of the product were shipped in the US in the 
previous year (i.e. products less than a year old or those primarily 
distributed outside the US do not quality). Similar restrictions for 
a `reasonable business'' could include revenue or 
distribution figures that would, as an example, exclude a large 
portion of the free software products.
    In summary, I feel there are serious defects in the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgement. I have outlined my objections in three 
specific areas: the definition of ``API'', the definitions 
of the various kinds of ``Middleware'', and the various 
exemptions and requirements related to API disclosure. While I feel 
there are other problems with the decree, these are the areas I have 
the most expertise in commenting on, and so I have chosen brevity 
over completeness. If this RPFJ is accepted, it will strengthen 
Microsoft's monopoly by providing court-sanctioned methods to 
leverage its current market dominance in operating systems to new 
and emerging markets.

[[Page 27921]]

    Sincerely,
    Andrew P Wildenberg
    Department of Computer Science
    SUNY Stony Brook
    Stony Brook, NY 11794-4400



MTC-00027069

From: Bill Herman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Hesse,
    I am writing this email in response to the public comment 
request period of the Microsoft settlement case.
    I have programmed personal computers since they became available 
on the market and am deeply concerned with the legal attack on 
Microsoft. I have used DOS since the product's inception. I have 
used the Microsoft products ACCESS and EXCEL to hold and organize my 
data. I have used all versions of Windows when Microsoft created 
them. I have used Internet Explorer to view the web. At every phase 
of my professional career, Microsoft has helped me reach my goals. 
Microsoft has continually anticipated the market and expanded their 
product line to capitalize on that market. At every turn, they 
release new and more robust versions of their products. They have 
continually run after the American dream!
    What is their reward? They get slapped with a mammoth anti-trust 
suit, not from the consumers they ``harmed'', not by some 
public outcry, not by any of their partners, but from their 
unsuccessful competitors! What these competitors could not win in a 
free market, they hope to extort by using the law as a club. If the 
same antitrust laws were applied to the auto industry, we would all 
still be riding model T cars since the buggy whip manufacturers 
could claim ``unfair competition'' and ``intent to 
monopolize''. If constantly improving one's products to gain 
market share is a crime, then you have to arrest everyone in any 
successful business, including myself! Failed businesses must not be 
allowed to set the rules for the markets in which they failed.
    Just as the government protects my right what I read, what I 
say, or whom I associate with, it must protect my right to choose 
what software I have on my computer! The way to protect that right 
is to allow Microsoft and its partners to license and bundle 
software as they see fit, not as their competitors see as 
``fair''. I am not a helpless victim. I make choices in 
operating system and applications. I can choose the best package for 
me. The court should not interfere with that choice. Everyone, 
including Bill Gates, has a fundamental right to his own property. 
By violating his rights, you violate mine. It is your responsibility 
to protect that right, not take it away by interfering with how 
Microsoft or its partners offer their products. A free society and a 
free economy go hand in hand. History is littered with examples 
where politicians meddled in a free market. The consistent long-term 
result was economic stagnation and political tyranny. By becoming a 
self made man, Bill Gates has not harmed me. In fact, he has helped 
me greatly. Don't punish success. Rule in favor of Microsoft and 
stop this travesty of justice!
    Sincerely,
    William R. Herman
    308 108th Ave NW Apt A411
    Bellevue, WA 98004
    [email protected]



MTC-00027070

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:46pm
Subject: micro soft settlement
    Attorney General of the United States:
    I understand terms of agreement regarding suit between 
Department of Justice, 9 states, and Microsoft have been agreed to 
by parties involved. I would like to see these terms finally adopted 
as agreed to.
    Yours truly,
    Lorraine Centofante, an interested citizen
    CC:RFC-
[email protected]...



MTC-00027071

From: Paul Iadonisi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the Proposed Final Judgment in the United States 
v. Microsoft antitrust case.
    I am a System Administrator who has been employed in the 
computer industry for fifteen years. In those fifteen years, I have 
seen the results of the illegal monopolistic practices of Microsoft 
that the company was found to be guilty of by U.S. District Judge 
Thomas Penfield Jackson on November 5, 1999.
    I have seen products discontinued by companies who had 
difficulty breaching the high barrier to entry that Microsoft has 
consistently kept artificially high. In many cases, the 
discontinuation of these products harmed the businesses I was 
employed by.
    I have seen companies who I was employed by place less and less 
emphasis on quality and security in their products and instead focus 
on become partners with Microsoft to the exclusion of competitive 
technologies. This has occurred even in cases where the non-
Microsoft technologies were of significantly higher quality than 
their Microsoft counterparts. In at least one case, I was personally 
harmed by these decisions through a reduction-in-force that was 
clearly aimed at those who did not agree with the decision to use 
Microsoft technologies.
    All of this could not have occurred were it not for Microsoft's 
illegally obtained monopoly position. The current Proposed Final 
Judgment does little to penalize Microsoft for its behavior and 
little or nothing to prevent future abuses. The Proposed Final 
Judgment in fact codifies Microsoft's behavior into law.
    I strongly urge the court to reject the Proposed Final Judgment 
currently in consideration and instead work with the nine states who 
have refused to enter into the agreement for their alternate 
settlement proposal.
    Any proposed remedy should have little or no input from 
Microsoft. The convicted criminal should never have a say in what 
punishment he should endure. I am disappointed that the Department 
of Justice has capitulated to so many of Microsoft's demands in the 
current Proposed Final Judgment and I urge the court to refuse to 
accept this agreement. --
    Paul Iadonisi
    Senior System Administrator
    Red Hat Certified Engineer



MTC-00027072

From: Lisa A Cate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer user,I don't think that it is right to punish 
Microsoft excessively.In any industry there will be some companies 
that are the leaders.Microsoft is a leader in the technology and 
software industry.They should have the right to make any 
improvements they feel are desirable to their products.If Microsoft 
has been ``bullying'' OEMs or their competitors(I'm unsure 
whether or not they've been doing this)then some behavior remedies 
may be in order.Breaking Microsoft up would be excessive punishment 
for anything they may possibly have been guilty of.Including 
Internet Explorer with Windows is very beneficial for computer users 
who enjoy internet activities.Even those who prefer Netscape can use 
Internet Explorer to download Netscape.There isn't any problem 
downloading competing products that I have found.That is hardly the 
way I'd expect a company taking advantage of being a monopoly to be 
doing.While I prefer to use Internet Explorer,I have downloaded 
Netscape for people who prefer Netscape without any problems doing 
it and using Internet Explorer to do the downloading.I started using 
computers October of 1995 and have been learning about how to do 
stuff with them mostly through reading about it on the internet.If 
the DOJ is looking for a company that needs a good swatting way more 
than Microsoft...AOL would be one that does.They bought Netscape and 
let it stagnate.Now they try to make it look like it's all 
Microsoft's fault that they have been steadily losing market share 
with it.There was some news reported in a local newspaper (The 
Durham Morning Herald) that AOL had plans to aquire RedHat Linux 
which hasn't happened so far.That makes me think that the only 
reason AOL bought Netscape was so they could use it to sue 
Microsoft.AOL ruined my Gateway 133 pentium PC.I wasn't having 
problems with it until making the mistake of putting in AOL 
software.I later found that other people have had even worse 
experiences with AOL than I had.Microsoft has been made to look like 
the evil monopoly by the likes of AOL and others whose doings make 
Microsoft look angelic by comparison.This covers most of the points 
I thought needed to be made about this so I'll close.
    Lisa A
    Cate
    [email protected]



MTC-00027073

From: Effie Robbins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement

[[Page 27922]]

    This suit must get over with as it is wasting the taxpayers and 
shareholders money. Microsoft is a very reputable company and the 
Department of Justice needs to finalize a decision as it makes our 
JUSTICE SYSTEM what it appears to be--a money wasting, 
ineffective system that does not work for the best interest 
of--WE, THE PEOPLE who pay and use this system. It just opens 
doors for lawsuits on any and all companies and has absolutely 
destroyed our faith in the stock market.
    When you are through then you can punish Judge Penfield Jackson 
for discussing a case to the media and public before it was 
finalized. At that point, this suit should have been dropped in its 
entirety.



MTC-00027074

From: Brendan McCullough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't agree.



MTC-00027075

From: Larry French
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft deserves our country's highest honor and praise for 
accomplishing all it has done and absolutely DOES NOT deserve 
anyone's scorn or to be punished for working hard and thinking 
smart. Please show our country, please show my son, that that it 
pays to work hard and think smart. No one has EVER been forced to 
buy a product from Microsoft, not even once. In a free market, 
customers always purchase the best products that they can find at 
the lowest price. To punish Microsoft for its success will only 
serve to limit the goods and services that are available to the 
consumer. In essence, punishing Microsoft will be equivallent to 
punishing the consumer.
    Please show that hard work and smart thinking pay better than 
political pull! Please show Americas children that it is OK to make 
heros out of successful companies and people that do the right thing 
instead of treating them like common criminals.
    Please set Microsoft free and do not punish them!
    Sincerely,
    Larry A. French



MTC-00027076

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:52pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    i think the settlement reached between the DOJ and Microsoft 
shold stand and the matter closed. Some may see Microsoft not as 
anti -competative but as super-competative. They have established 
cutting edge products priced to consumer satisfaction and are 
maximizing their profits. This is a textbook economic business 
model.
    If competitors want to earn a bigger share of the market they 
should come out with a better product or a cheaper one. Computer 
users are sophicticated enough to recognize a better value and 
generally well able to afford it if they choose. In every industry 
if you want to capture more market share you should have to earn it.
    As far as the dissident states, i think they are headline 
seekers attempting to get some unrestricted funds from the 
``cash cow'' much as was the case with the tobacco 
industry.
    I dont think anybody gains by continuing this legal 
battle.Businesses who feel aggrieved can sped thie own time and 
shareholders dollars fighting with Microsoft. They might be better 
advised to spend the efforts in making a better product.



MTC-00027077

From: John Edstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    This note is to express my dissatisfaction with the agreement 
reached in the Microsoft anti trust case. I have already co-signed a 
letter from Dan Kegel which pretty thoroughly covers most of my 
objections to the settlement. I personally believe that only a 
breakup of MS into independent operating system and application/
services companies. But I guess that isn't even on the table 
anymore.
    I endorse Mr. Kegel's criticisms of the settlement and his 
suggestions on better ways to deal with those issues. However, one 
thing that I find especially irksome and unjust about MS's illegal 
activities is absence of protection for the consumer. In the past 4 
years I have purchased 3 computers. All of them had MS Windows ( NT 
) pre installed. I don't like Windows. I don't use it. I resent 
being forced to buy it just to get the hardware. More, I can't even 
find out how much of the total unit price was devoted to the 
unwanted software. I was told that the information could not be 
divulged because of the OEM's contract with MS and it wouldn't do me 
any good since there are no refunds for unrequested, unused 
software.
    In order to prevent this unjust situation from continuing I 
therefore additionally suggest that something like the following be 
included in final judgment.
    1) The price of all MS software pre installed on a computer will 
be clearly published on all invoices and in all advertising where 
the price of the OEM product is displayed.
    2) There will be a mechanism whereby a customer can obtain a 
full refund by returning the software that they didn't ask for, 
don't want and never use.
    3) 1&2 above will be made retroactive to when the action 
culminating in this settlement was initiated. People who were 
charged for MS software without their permission during this period 
will be informed how much they paid for it and will be given an 
opportunity to return any unused software for a refund plus an 
interest charge on the money while it was under MS's control.
    I don't think that this will affect many people, most of whom 
would buy and use MS Windows anyway. Still, there is no good reason 
for not informing people what they are spending their money on and, 
the notion that consumer choice can regulate markets is just a cruel 
joke as long consumers are forced to buy Windows anyway even though 
they choose to use something else.
    John Edstrom
    Apt. 1
    845 SW 10th
    Newport, OR 97365



MTC-00027078

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    Bernice Gray
    105 Dawn Drive
    Fayetteville, GA 30215



MTC-00027079

From: Jim Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:55pm
Subject: Unjust Justice
    To whom it may concern:
    I am completely outraged at the lawsuit against Microsoft. This 
organization has done more for this country and its people than all 
of the organizations that are obviously dead set on the financial 
ruin of Microsoft and the USDOJ and some members of our government 
is supporting it. This company has not harmed the people 
(financially or otherwise) and has done nothing to hurt compitition 
except compete in one of the most compititive markets in the world. 
Their prices have been very fair and compititive and their products 
are superior to all.
    Just a few days ago I received updated browser software from my 
internet provider and guess what, the browser provided was Netscape 
with no other options and when I started to load it, it gave me no 
choice except to install Netscape. It took several hours to remove 
Netscape because it is an inferior product and difficult to use when 
compared to similar products in the market place (including 
Microsoft Internet Explorer). At least I have always had the option 
of loading other supporting products when installing microsoft 
products. There has always been several choices available or the 
choice to install none.
    My personal request; In the name of the majority of the people, 
drop this litigation

[[Page 27923]]

and stop wasting our hard earned tax money because of a few very 
greedy and less qualified compititors, states and some of their 
legislators. Please challenge any compititor to provide a superior 
product and they will gain market share immediately. What happened 
to the old saying, ``Build a better mouse trap and the world 
will be at your door''.
    Sincerely,
    J. R. Mitchell,
    a very concerned Washington State Voter and Citizen.



MTC-00027080

From: Jack Lichten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft must not be allowed to do this!
    YOU MUST NEVER LET MICROSOFT GET AWAY WITH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
Yes, it would help the schools, but in such a way as to give 
monopolize the educational market as well in favor of Microsoft!!! 
With this plan, Microsoft would give schools super-new Wintels or 
super-old Macintoshes.
    Because of the fact that the Wintels (backed by Microsoft) would 
be much more souped up than the Macs, the entire school computer 
buisness would fall to Microsoft (and I'm sure you can guess why). 
Passing this new agreement would do just that. Remember Standard 
Oil? This is just that, for the 20th century-ers.
    Just my two cents.



MTC-00027081

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Greetings;
    I feel the settlement agreement that is now in effect is fair to 
both Microsoft and their competiors. I would like to see that 
settlement approved and not allow anymore lawsuits against 
microsoft.
    Sincerly,
    Darlene Hill
    P.O. Box 410
    Ridgetop, Tn
    37152
    [email protected]



MTC-00027082

From: Sean Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1/27/2002
    To whom it may concern,
    My name is Sean Roberts and I am writing to voice my opposition 
to the current Microsoft settlement proposal. This proposal does 
nothing to address the issue of Microsoft's dangerous lack of 
software quality and its effect on national security, nor does it 
address the ``iron fist'' policy Microsoft employs to 
choke off the free exchange of information by limiting communication 
to Microsoft platforms only. The Microsoft settlement proposal not 
only fails to punish Microsoft for its behavior, but also fails to 
address the real issue--Microsoft's unwillingness to play on a 
level playing field.
    In this letter I provide details to support my opposition. These 
details include information about the use of the Internet to freely 
exchange ideas and Microsoft's serious impact on that free exchange.
    I will also give my own negative experiences with Microsoft 
products and the impact of such poor quality software on national 
defense.
    Background
    I work for a company that writes software for US missile 
defense. Unlike the business world where Microsoft products often 
provide the only software solutions, the science and defense 
communities employ a variety of computing solutions--typically 
various flavors of UNIX. The reasons for employing these alternate 
platforms are multiple and include, but are not limited to, 
security, reliability, and computational speed. Microsoft does not 
offer a platform that can handle the types of computationally 
complex problems many scientists are trying to solve.
    Free Information Exchange vs. Proprietary Protocols
    The Internet as we know it today grew from the seed of ARPANET, 
a network of military computers built for communication between 
defense installations, and communication between defense research 
scientists. Later ARPANET was made public so researchers and 
academics outside the defense industry could benefit from the open 
sharing of ideas and information that the defense researchers found 
so useful. At that time, because the protocols were free and open, 
anybody could get involved in the sharing of information, regardless 
of the platform they chose to use. Later the business world came to 
benefit from this ability to share information, to manage their 
finances, and to allow communication between departments that were 
separated by large distances. Soon this network grew to allow 
average citizens to access vast amounts of information that had 
previously been unavailable to them.
    Recently, Microsoft has begun to employ proprietary protocols 
that prevent citizens using non-Microsoft platforms from being 
involved in the sharing of information. If you wish to communicate 
with someone who uses Microsoft products you must also use Microsoft 
products. It now appears that the Internet, a publicly built and 
maintained infrastructure designed to allow everyone to participate 
in a climate of open exchange of ideas is becoming something else 
indeed. It seems that the Internet is doomed to become yet another 
strategic tool to maintain and further Microsoft's dominant position 
in the desktop operating system market, and to allow Microsoft to 
make further inroads into the server market.
    The .NET initiative is taking Microsoft's 
``domination'' strategy to new levels (in light of 
Microsoft's past actions, to think otherwise would be na 



MTC-00027132

From: Ryan Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:00pm
Subject: Unacceptable
    I have read the settlement between the United States Government 
and Microsoft, and I do not find it acceptable. The settlement does 
not even begin to address the problem at hand: the illegal operating 
system monopoly Microsoft holds. It appears instead to be an almost-
clever series of loopholes which may permit continued illegal 
behavior.
    Let me give some illustrations:
    III.C.5 . ``Presenting in the initial boot sequence its own 
IAP offer provided that the OEM complies with 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.''
    --This was written either by a novice, or by an individual 
with Microsoft's interests at heart. Software does not exist but for 
the cooperation of those who write it. Most ``technical 
specifications'' exist as agreements between programmers (many 
as RFCs). Consequently, if Microsoft chooses not to cooperate, it 
has the ability to change its ``technical specifications'' 
so that other companies cannot comply and still assert that they are 
within the bounds of ``reasonableness''. Consequently this 
clause holds no water and appears to be cosmetic.
    III.C.3 ``Launching automatically, at the conclusion of the 
initial boot sequence or subsequent boot sequences, or upon 
connections to or disconnections from the Internet, any Non-
Microsoft Middleware if Microsoft Middleware that provides similar 
functionality would otherwise be launched automatically at that 
time, provided that any such Non-Microsoft Middleware displays on 
the desktop no user interface or a user interface of similar size 
and shape to the user interface displayed by the corresponding 
Microsoft Middleware.''
    --This essentially allows OEMs to use non-Microsoft 
middleware only if such middleware apes what Microsoft middleware 
does already. I can think of no poorer excuse for 
``competitiveness.'' III.J.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...''
    --1) It is well known in the security industry that open 
documentation (indeed--revelation of source code) leads to a 
more secure product, not less. The idea that revealing some layer of 
a Microsoft protocol would compromise its security is perfectly 
fraudulent. I could explicate this point further, but I feel that it 
is unnecessary since this information is widely known (and must have 
been ignored in the writing of this settlement).
    2) On a more disturbing note, this allows Microsoft the ability 
to refuse disclosure of any of its protocols for ``security 
reasons'', real or not. Since other companies require these 
protocols to interoperate with Microsoft's products, this is in 
effect giving Microsoft the ability to guarantee that only Microsoft 
may make middleware for its operating system. In a competitive 
situation, this would be disadvantageous to Microsoft, since 
middleware makers would simply switch to another operating system. 
In this world where Microsoft's operating system overwhelms the 
market, middleware producers will go out of business if they switch 
to another operating system.
    All these references to ``menus'' and 
``icons'' are disturbing when it is certainly conceivable 
that these visual aids will disappear and change over time as 
Microsoft's product evolves (perhaps they will disappear precisely 
to circumvent this settlement's stipulation. At this moment, there 
are very few OEMs that can carry on business without a contract to 
distribute Microsoft's operating system. As a consequence, none of 
them will have an alternative but to sign any license that Microsoft 
cares to write. Microsoft doesn't need to make their licenses 
``reasonable'' nor ``non-discriminatory'' 
because it would be financially impossible for an OEM to contest 
one. This situation is subject to change, but without real, visible 
constraints, Microsoft will maintain a stranglehold on its Covered 
OEMs.
    The fundamental problem with Microsoft's situation--that it 
has illegally maintained its monopoly and stifled competition, is 
not given much consideration. Much more of the volume of the 
settlement is devoted to appointing ``Compliance 
Officers'' and ``TCs'' than was spent on the rights 
of the OEMs to choose a non-Microsoft product. Nor does the 
settlement hint at how non-Microsoft products are to gain a foothold 
enough to compete at all. The fundamental problem here is that 
Microsoft is eager and capable of leveraging its dominant share in 
the Operating System market into an anticompetitive advantage for 
its other products (and further extend its monopoly at the same 
time). The settlement needs to address that, rather than grant 
piddling ``exceptions'' for other software companies.

[[Page 27940]]

    -RYaN
    Ryan D. Williams, MIT Class of 2003



MTC-00027133

From: Rebecca Ryness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    No company should be allowed to abuse antitrust laws, including 
Microsoft. I understand that Microsoft is considered by some a 
``good'' company, but they are guilty of some very serious 
violations in regard to competition in their field. I do not think 
that the Proposed Final Judgment is the answer.
    Please reevaluate the rulings on this case with comments such as 
mine in mind.
    Thank you.
    Rebecca Ryness
    (323)663-3344



MTC-00027136

From: Kerwin Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I do not see this settlement as being effective since.
    1) It does not do anything to alleviate the problem of Microsoft 
being a monopoly since it leaves the company intact.
    2) It is to difficult to enforce the provisions and allows 
Microsoft to exempt itself from key ones.
    3) Microsoft still decides what products are in computers that 
consumers buy.
    4) The products they provide do not run well with non Microsoft 
products so consumers either have to deal with conflicts, obtain and 
install a whole new operating system or purchase Microsoft products 
only.
    5) Microsoft has a history of not holding to agreements when it 
serves the companies purpose.
    The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States are 
good and serve the public interest but do not go far enough without 
addressing the above issues. Also citizens, consumer groups, 
Microsoft customers and Microsoft's competitors must be give an 
equal opportunity to participate in public proceeding held under the 
Tunney Act by the court.
    Thank You for your time
    Kerwin Brown
    604 W. Beardsley
    Champaign. IL 61820
    (217--) 352-3312



MTC-00027137

From: John ODell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:05pm
Subject: Suit
    I think that everyone should leave Microsoft alone; every 
company out there has the same opportunity to make the great impact 
on the technology and business in today world. If not for alot of 
time in development of there product Microsoft has taken, we would 
be 10 to 15 years behind. Everyone user has the choice to use 
whatever software out there. Like most of my friends use Netscape 
not IE, or other e-mail suite then Outlook. As for the software that 
Microsoft integrated in to there OS I personal do not use most of it 
I buy software that I like and have been using for along time. So as 
to say that by integrating of software in Microsoft OS people do 
have a choice to use it or buy the ones they like (when you buy a 
car there is a car stereo in made by the manufacturer, you have the 
option to use it or buy one that you like.
    AOL messenger is not the only one out there. Many can integrate 
in to each other and are very much alike. There has been a messenger 
of some type along time before AOL came along. And all things that 
are invent has came from ideas of something else that is in use, so 
to say AOL has to be the only one to have a messenger or the use of 
one is about the same thing that everyone is up in arms that they 
say Microsoft is doing.
    Thank you and let Business grow and no Government control of it, 
it unproductive.
    John H. ODell
    Bonehead a Shock
    Wave Lab



MTC-00027138

From: Brad (038) Jo-Anne Jircitano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
U.S. District Judge
    Microsoft needs to be fairly punished for its anticompetitive 
and monopolistic behavior. The current settlement proposed by the 
U.S. Government and Microsoft is woefully inadequate. The abandoned 
proposal to break-up Microsoft into two or more companies would have 
advanced the goal of restoring innovation and competition in the 
marketplace. When I buy a personal computer today, I can choose 
between several manufacturers ( HP, Sony, IBM, Gateway, Compaq etc.) 
and the internal chips are manufactured by either Intel or Amdahl. 
[These choices exclude Apple Computer, Inc., which is at most, a 
niche player in the personal computer business.] When it comes to 
choosing a suite of applications (word processor, spreadsheet etc.) 
the only viable choice for the rank and file user is Microsoft 
Office. This automatically limits my operating system choice to one 
manufacturer, Microsoft--Windows XP or Windows 2000. Why 
couldn't I choose a Linux operating system and get Microsoft Office 
as an application suite? Because that would create competition for 
Microsoft's operating system. This competition would, in turn, 
create innovation in the marketplace. We might find that Sun 
Microsystems might offer it's operating system for personal 
computers if Microsoft Office were ported to that operating system.
    This is why Microsoft felt it had to illegally attack Netscape. 
Netscape was becoming so powerful/popular that innovative companies 
were beginning to write word processor and spreadsheet applications 
that would work directly within the browser--Netscape 
Navigator. If this trend were allowed to continue, American 
consumers would have been able to actually choose the operating 
system that would be installed on their personal computer. If 
Microsoft allowed this trend to continue, consumers would have been 
given the freedom to not choose Microsoft as the only viable vendor 
for their personal computer operating system.
    Microsoft Corp. has been found guilty of breaking the laws of 
this country. Many consumers and potentially innovative companies 
have been deeply harmed. Microsoft needs to be punished and the 
punishment needs to attempt to restore a free marketplace, 
innovation and competition in the personal computer industry. The 
proposed settlement does not do this. As a citizen of the United 
States of America, I look to you to see that justice prevails. 
Regards,
    Brad A. Jircitano



MTC-00027139

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:07pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft settlement
    I sincerely hope that this self-serving, tax wasting lawsuit 
brought about by so-called competitors will be quietly dumped on the 
ash heap of thousands of other wasteful lawsuits of no merit. 
Microsoft has allowed me, a senior citizen, to enjoy the benefits of 
computerization and the Internet at a cost that has always been 
affordable to everyone. If the competitors wish to compete, they can 
stop whining and start spending what Microsoft has had to spend on 
research and development to make their products attractive and 
reasonably priced. All this lawsuit has done is hasten the slide 
into recession and a battered stock market. It's time that everyone 
realizes the damage this idiocy has created.
    Richard J. Schuster
    3835 Caughlin Parkway
    Reno, Nevada 89509



MTC-00027140

From: Ken Casey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:09pm
Subject: Micrpsoft Settlement
    It is difficult for me to understand why the Federal Government 
would single out Microsoft for this type of legal action. Those of 
us in the real world sincerely appreciate the opportunity afforded 
us by the wonderful products produced by this company.
    It appears that you are attempting to hold Microsoft back to 
allow those other companies to catch up or even overtake them.
    Where do you think this country would be if it were not for the 
software development done by Microsoft?
    I can't understand why you would want to penalize a company for 
succeeding. Please listen to the common man for a change and leave 
this company alone.
    Ken Casey
    Broker-Owner
    Ken Casey Realty
    13710 Hwy 441, Suite 200
    Lady Lake, FL 32159 1-888-716-6709



MTC-00027141

From: Tom Will

[[Page 27941]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas E. Will
3660 Fawn Drive
Canfield, OH 44406
    January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I believe that the antitrust suit that was brought forward 
against Microsoft has taken the eye off of innovation. The 
settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the Justice 
Department pledges to put the drive to innovate back into the IT 
industry. The settlement is designed to give the consumer and 
economy a much needed confidence boost.
    Under the settlement, Microsoft has agreed to license its 
Windows operating system to twenty of the largest computer makers on 
equal terms and conditions, including price. The settlement 
instructs Microsoft not to enter contracts that would restrain 
software developers from developing or promoting software that would 
compete with its Windows. Microsoft has also agreed to the 
establishment of a three-person ``Technical Committee'' 
that would observe its conformity to the settlement.
    I believe that the settlement addresses the demands of the suit 
adequately, and it would be beneficial in providing assistance to 
the revival of the economy. It's time to get on with business. I 
strongly recommend that you maker certain to finalize this 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Will
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027142

From: Jack Lilygren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
622 Dundee Lane
Holmes Beach, FL 34217
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Three years is a very long time. With the economy in its current 
shape and so many other important causes that tax payer dollars 
could be used for, there could never be a better time to close this 
case. Microsoft has contributed too much to society, the economy and 
the IT industry to be punished the way they have been. Microsoft's 
innovations have changed the computer technology forever and 
enhanced the professional and personal lives of millions of users 
around the world.
    In addition to the soundness of Microsoft's innovations, the 
past three years has proven that Microsoft is has fortitude and 
strength. Though the lawsuit has, without a doubt, cost Microsoft 
millions of dollars and unspeakable frustration, I believe that the 
hardship they have had to endure throughout this litigation will 
only help to make them a better company.
    They have already displayed gracious compliance to the terms of 
the settlement and have even agreed to issues that were not even at 
issue in the lawsuit.
    It should no longer be necessary for competitors to accuse 
Microsoft of trying to corner the market. This is because Microsoft 
has agreed to create future versions of Windows that would allow for 
compatibility with non-Microsoft products. Additionally, competitors 
will have access to internal Windows interfaces--an 
unprecedented move in an antitrust case.
    It is my hope and the hope of many observers that this matter 
will come to a close as soon as possible. We are counting on your 
vigilant efforts.
    Sincerely,
    John Lilygren
    [email protected]



MTC-00027143

From: Jack T. Dwyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a taxpayer and citizen, I would like to add my name and that 
of the other members of my family in requesting that the DOJ 
finalize the proposed settlement agreement with Microsoft and move 
on with more important work and pressing issues. In my opinion, this 
whole issue and that of AOL's pending lawsuite is nothing more than 
a continuing effort to stifle Microsoft's innovative efforts, and 
subsidize other non competetive companies at taxpayers expense. I am 
really tired of this issue, and would like to see some progress on 
behalf of consumers, technology, and the government. These 
companies, AOL Netscape and others are working to defeat Microsoft's 
efforts to move on, and are using politics and the courts to futher 
their ambitions.
    Lets all move on and devote our time to more rewarding work. Let 
the success or failure of private companies depend on their own 
efforts, not on their abilities to manipulate the DOJ and the 
courts.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Dwyer
    [email protected]



MTC-00027144

From: Phil (038) Barbara Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    One of the fundamental functions of the United States government 
is to protect its citizens from the initiation of force and fraud. 
Microsoft is guilty of neither. Millions of people buy Microsoft 
products of their own free will. No one forces them to do so. The 
American people are not ``helpless victims'' who cannot 
choose software that is most useful to them. The government does not 
have a right to decide what can be on my or anybody's computer.
    It's not the government's place to decide who has ``too 
much'' of the market. It is the consumer's job to do that by 
deciding what to purchase. The complaint against Microsoft 
originated with its unsuccessful competitors, not with its customers 
or partners. Failed businesses must not be allowed to set the rules 
for the markets in which they have failed.
    Microsoft has a fundamental right to its property. The 
government's job is to protect that right, not to take it away. You 
must vote in favor of Microsoft because to do otherwise would blunt 
the entrepreneurial spirit if this great country.
    Barbara Stone,
    Strongsville, OH



MTC-00027145

From: MCCUE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:14pm
Subject: all done
    I hope this will help



MTC-00027146

From: Margaret K. Herrin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Margaret Herrin
9 Pebble Lane
Signal Mountain, TN 37377-2142
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support in the three-year antitrust 
settlement between Microsoft and the federal government. I sincerely 
hope that no further litigation is being sought at the federal 
level.
    Taking in to account the terms of the agreement, Microsoft did 
not get off easily. In fact, Microsoft is left to make several 
significant changes to the ways that they now handle their business. 
For example, Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose for use 
by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows'' operating system products. With the many terms of the 
agreement, I see no reason to pursue further litigation on any level 
against Microsoft. Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret Herrin



MTC-00027148

From: Jim Brauner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is simple. I expect the government and legal system to punish 
predatory business practices when they are judged as such. Microsoft 
should have little to no say so in what their penalty should be. It 
should hurt them and cost them lest you send a message to them that 
because they have billions to try to change the truth of their 
conviction is not going to work.
    Penalize them to the full extent of the law so that they 
hopefully learn a lesson. If you don't do that then just take you 
pathetic system and go home, you are not needed nor are you helpful.



MTC-00027149

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:25pm
Subject: microsoft settlement

[[Page 27942]]

    WHEN ARE YOU PEOPLE GOING TO REALIZE THAT THE PEOPLE OPPOSED TO 
MICROSOFT ONLY WANT TO DESTROY AN INOVATIVE AND SUCCESFULL BUSINESS 
ENTRAPENEAUR,WHO HAS DONE MORE GOOD TO BRING COMPUTORS AND COMPUTING 
OUT OF THE DARK AGES.LETS QUIT WASTING (MY ) TAXPAYERS MONEY ON THIS 
WITCH HUNT AND GET ONTO SOMETHING USEFUL.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Thomas J. Hankamp
    318 Creek Rd.
    Pleasant Valley,N.Y. 12569



MTC-00027150

From: Jared
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to state, for the record, that I am opposed to the 
current Microsoft anti-trust settlement. It is not in my interest 
and neither serves justice nor justifies the vast expense that 
taxpayers have contributed to thwart yet another abuse of market 
power by yet another behemoth corporation.
    Jared C. Rypka-Hauer
    Continuum Media Group LLC
    Burnsville MN



MTC-00027151

From: Ann Gambrino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:26pm
Subject: re: Microsoft cases
January 26, 2002
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
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:
    I write to express my concerns about the proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft cases. As the executive director of business/trade 
association, I consider myself to be very pro-business and generally 
supportive of free enterprise and open competition. However, in 
order for the free enterprise system to properly work, there must be 
an opportunity for businesses to actually compete against each 
other! I respect Microsoft for what they have been able to 
accomplish, but I believe Microsoft has gone too far in some of its 
practices. As a result, a competitive market in their sector no 
longer exists, and businesses and consumers are hindered and 
frustrated.
    I understand that a settlement has been proposed that the 
Department of Justice has found acceptable. I further understand 
that various attorney generals have also found the proposed 
settlement acceptable. The Attorney General of the State of Utah is 
not one of them. I support his position and believe that the terms 
of the settlement are too lenient on Microsoft. Adoption of the 
proposed settlement would do nothing but delay the imposition of 
reasonable sanctions, prohibitions, and conditions on Microsoft 
until the next government action is taken, if any. In the meantime, 
Microsoft would essentially walk away with a hand-slap and the 
ability to continue its anti-competitive behavior. This could also 
set a precedence that would allow other businesses to take similar 
control of a market, because they know that they could get away with 
only lenient punishment, if any.
    I ask the court to conduct hearings to determine an appropriate 
remedy that will reasonably penalize Microsoft for past actions and 
prevent future violations of antitrust laws. Such an action will 
only be in the best interest of all businesses and consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Ann Gambrino, executive director
    Utah Hotel & Lodging Association
    CC: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General
    Jonathon Jaffe, The MWW Group



MTC-00027152

From: J. Andrew Hoerner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a consumer of Microsoft software, in both my personal and 
my professional capacity. I strongly oppose the current settlement, 
which does little or nothing to prevent Microsoft from continuing to 
extend its virtual monopoly on operating systems for desktops and 
laptops to other forms of software, by either integrating them with 
the OS, or requiring software developers to make various concessions 
for the privilege of building complicated interfaces with the OS. I 
believe that no solution can be adequate unless it either splits 
Microsoft into an OS company and an applications company or makes 
the OS source code available to all, including MS's own applications 
developers, on a uniform basis.
    Andrew Hoerner
    J. Andrew Hoerner
    Senior Research Scholar & Director of Research
    Center for a Sustainable Economy
    1731 Connecticut Ave, NW, #500
    Washington DC 20009
    phone: (202) 234-9665
    fax: (202) 588-1297
    [email protected]
    http://www.sustainableeconomy.org/



MTC-00027153

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    Don Welter
    515 Defoe Dr.
    Columbia, MO 65203



MTC-00027154

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Leave them alone. They provide outstanding products and service.
    Rusty Ashbaugh



MTC-00027155

From: Robert Walion
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    .This proposed ``settlement'' is a joke.Microsoft 
essentially has offered nothing and is probably laughing at the 
court for even considering the proposal.Microsoft needs to be dealt 
with harshly.Instead,the Justice department wants to lightly slap 
them on the wrist.
    There should be a $10 billion fine at the very least.This still 
wouldn't really hurt Microsoft since they currently have almost $40 
billion in cash reserves.The company should still be broken up and 
it's conduct in the marketplace closely monitored.After seeing 
several states sign off on this travesty of a ``deal',I won't 
hold my breath waiting for that to happen....
    God help us all if this is how the Govt. deals with white collar 
criminals.
    Robert Walion



MTC-00027156

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    Barbara Payne
    10021 Cavalry Dr
    Fairfax, VA 22030-1913



MTC-00027157

From: H. Peter Anvin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 27943]]

To:
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington DC 20530-0001
    [email protected]
    From: H. Peter Anvin
    4390 Albany Dr Apt 46
    San Jose CA 95129-1621
    [email protected]
    To the Honorable Court:
    As a resident of the United States and a professional software 
developer, I would like to comment on the proposed settlement in 
United States vs. Microsoft, as provided by the Tunney Act. I 
believe the proposed settlement contains severe flaws in that it 
seems to lack proper provisions for enforcement, and fails to 
address some of the real consumer concerns going forward.
    First of all, let me refer to you to a very thorough and 
insightful analysis provided by Mr. Dan Kegel, available on the 
World Wide Web as http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html. Mr. 
Kegel carefully addresses many of the shortcomings in the proposed 
settlement, and advises how to adjust it to make it more 
appropriately fit the current situation.
    Rather than reproducing the points of Mr. Kegel's analysis here, 
I would like to explain why it is imperative that these elements 
take into account. The goal of the settlement should be to rectify 
the anomalous situation that has developed in the computer industry 
through the unlawful anticompetitive conduct on the part of 
Microsoft.
    FOR THERE TO BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO MICROSOFT, THE INTIMATE 
CONNECTION BETWEEN OPERATING SYSTEM VENDOR AND APPLICATION SOFTWARE 
MUST BE BROKEN. At one time, it was commonplace for software vendors 
to release their software for multiple platforms. Today, due to the 
overwhelming dominance of the Microsoft platform, Windows is 
generally the only platform for which software can be obtained, 
regardless if the software is from Microsoft or not. Therefore, the 
settlement must create conditions under which we can move from a 
Microsoft- centric software market to a competitive software market, 
and the only way to do so is by making it possible to create a 
standard platform, an Application Programming Interface (API), and 
enforce its use. This is addressed by Mr. Kegel in the proposal of 
the creation of a Windows API Standards Expert Group and requiring 
Microsoft to cooperate with it; a proposal which I fully support.
    FOR THERE TO BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO MICROSOFT, FILE FORMATS 
MUST BE DISCLOSED. Microsoft have, by leveraging their Windows 
monopoly, established monopolies in other areas, such as 
productivity applications. Today it is commonplace for people in 
business situations to receive Microsoft Office documents as e-mail 
attachments; it being assumed that the recipient has access to 
Microsoft Office as a matter of course. The Findings of Fact ?20 and 
?39 address the barrier to entry; this is an essential part of the 
barrier that needs to be overcome.
    FOR THERE TO BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO MICROSOFT, THE FINAL 
JUDGEMENT NEEDS TO BE STRICTLY ENFORCED. Microsoft has in the past, 
such as after the Consent Agreement of 1994, dealt with antitrust 
settlements by making trivial changes that amount to little more 
than relabelling to their business practices in order to avoid the 
bite of the settlement. Due to the very rapid pace of the technology 
industry, renewed court action is likely to delay until the renewed 
monopoly situation is already a fait accompli. Therefore, the Final 
Judgement needs to have independent oversight, capable of imposing 
strong sanction without further court action.
    FOR THERE TO BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO MICROSOFT, OPEN SOURCE 
SOFTWARE NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED THE SAME ACCESS AND PROTECTION AS 
COMPETING COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE. A number of items in the proposed 
Final Judgement specifically excludes so-called Open Source 
software. However, it has shown over the past several years that the 
most likely candidates to challenge Microsoft as a monopoly are 
exactly such Open Source operating systems and software, such as 
Linux, an operating system developed by Linus Torvalds in 
conjunction with a large number of volunteers and, more recently, 
corporations. It is therefore imperative that the proposed Final 
Judgement be revised to give Open Source software developers full 
parity with commercial software developers.
    As outlined above, I believe the Proposed Final Judgement is not 
in the public interest as it will not perform its intended function 
of restoring competition to the software marketplace. I refer to the 
proposal of Mr. Kegel for the details on how it may be revised.
    Sincerely,
    H. Peter Anvin
    San Jose, California



MTC-00027158

From: Julie Davidson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From the Competitive Impact Statement, section II, Overview of 
Relief: ``The relief contained in the Proposed Final Judgment 
provides prompt, certain and effective remedies for consumers. The 
requirements and prohibitions will eliminate Microsoft's illegal 
practices, prevent recurrence of the same or similar practices, and 
restore the competitive threat that middleware products posed prior 
to Microsoft's unlawful undertakings.''
    I think the Proposed Final Judgment does not begin to achieve 
this. MS is nothing if not creative when it comes to ``business 
methods''. Not to mention language interpretation...
    And how does it happen that the definition of Microsoft 
Middleware omits MS Office and Outlook (but includes Outlook Express 
??? ) I mean, if we're going to ``restore 
competitiveness'', why play favorites?
    cc: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    CC:snail mail



MTC-00027159

From: Shane Chen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:30pm
Subject: On the Proposed Final Judgment.
    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 comment on the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in 
United States v. Microsoft (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm). My name is Shane Chen. I'm currently working as a web 
master for the Institute for Creative Technologies 
(www.ict.usc.edu). In the past five years, I also worked as a 
network administrator, and technical support. I can easily attest to 
Microsoft domination of the office applications, middleware, and 
operating systems market.
    If the PFJ ``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 proposal is wholly inadequate. Not only are the terms 
such as ``API'', ``middleware'', and 
``Windows OS'' too narrowly defined, the current PFJ seems 
to only be a veiled attempt at ``punishing Microsoft.''
    In short, the current PFJ still leaves everyone at the mercy of 
Microsoft. MS could rename a product, create a new product, fail to 
provide sufficient documentation to competitors, etc., and even if 
MS was caught violating the PFJ, they would spend months and years 
in court to argue that they weren't in violation. Meanwhile, 
business still has to go on. People still need operating systems to 
drive their machines, MS word to do word processing, etc. And MS's 
competitors would suffer because the easiest way to easier 
compatibility and avoid problems would still be to use MS products. 
Because of this, the current PFJ cannot possible restore competition 
to the computer software market. The easiest and the most elegant 
solution, is not by doing anything directly to Microsoft, but 
putting Microsoft in the position where they actually have to 
compete, instead doing anything they please knowing full well 
there's not a thing anyone could do about it. This is NOT an 
impossible task. However, to accomplish this, the U.S. government 
would have to lead the way.
    If the U.S. government would decree that all government software 
be switched away from closed sourced proprietary solutions to open 
source based solutions, then everyone could compete fairly. This 
would give immediate incentive for all businesses wanting government 
business to at least in part run open source software. Microsoft 
would instantly cease to be the dominate player in the computer 
software market. This is of course, not excluding Microsoft from

[[Page 27944]]

competition. Microsoft is welcome to compete in that space. They 
could provide open source solutions or file formats, or at the very 
least, have to also create products that can no longer exclude 
competition by intentional proprietary design.
    The simplicity of this solution would actually restore 
competition to a market that is currently at the will and whimsy of 
Microsoft. Of course, the appellate courts have no such legal power 
to decree this, but the dominance of Microsoft in the computer 
software market space will require a solution of this magnitude.
    God save us all,
    Shane Chen



MTC-00027160

From: Dick and Candy James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
January 27, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft, Justice Dept.
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I would like to urge you to support the settlement that has been 
reached between the Dept, of Justice and the Microsoft Corp. It is 
time to get back to rebuilding our economy, especially the 
technology field which has been so badly hurt in this recession.
    Sincerely,
    Carlyn and Richard James
    741 Walnut
    Edmonds, Wa. 98020



MTC-00027161

From: Todd Grant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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. As a Small business owner in the computer technology field, I 
will keep this brief. Each day Microsoft goes with out checks in 
place to monitor the tactics they use, the harder it is for me to 
provide my customers with the best solution available.
    In short, the proposed settlement is a bad idea
    Sincerely,
    Todd Grant--Consultant
    NT Consultants
    [email protected]
    http://www.ntconsultants.net



MTC-00027162

From: Jud Meaders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the two months or so since I first wrote, nothing has 
happened to change my mind re your caving in to the Microsoft 
Corporation with your ``proposed settlement.'' Microsoft 
continues its anti-competetive practices, seemingly with your 
blessing. They continue to use their monopoly position to leverage 
their way into other key areas of the economy. Again, with your 
blessing.
    Does the public know that the federal government is Microsoft's 
largest customer? How is it, given the judgment against them, 
unanimously upheld, that the government continues to purchase 
products and services from them, and still keeps them on a preferred 
supplier list? Pardon my cynicism, but could it be their money and 
influence? What else could it be?
    Does the public know that Microsoft has not paid ANY federal 
income taxes for at least the past two years, maybe longer? Do they 
know how Micorosft is doing that? Can you say non-expensed stock 
option grants? Do they know that Microsoft's internal auditor was 
fired several years ago because he wouldn't go along with what he 
considered securities fraud? That he received a $4 million 
settlement with the company that included a gag order?
    Given the penchant of this administration for secrecy, it may 
take us some time to find out just what the government's ties with 
Microsoft really are (how else to explain such a capitulation to an 
arrogant, unrepentant monopolist?). But I will do what I can to see 
that those ties are exposed, by writing letters such as this one, by 
staying informed, and by letting my elected Senators and 
Representatives know of my opinion. I am forwarding a copy of this 
e-mail to each of them.
    Thank you for your time. I hope your future actions prove me 
wrong.
    Jud Meaders



MTC-00027163

From: John Stevenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:35pm
Subject: Comment for the Record Microsoft Antitrust Case
    Dept. of Justice--Interested Parties
    I believe that your prosecution of Microsoft is nothing less 
than an attempt to tear down a company that has earned its way in 
the marketplace. This country is about achievement and that means 
winning and losing. Your job is to simply keep your hands off the 
process.
    Sincerely,
    John Stevenson
    1109 Don Gaspar Lane
    Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505



MTC-00027164

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Currently the software development industry is at an inflection 
point. The monolithic application architectures of the 1980's and 
1990's are giving way to architectures based on Object-Oriented 
design and XML-based interoperability.
    With its .NET software initiative, Microsoft is providing the 
leadership that PC developers are looking for. Microsoft's work in 
the languages and tools area is critical work that enables thousands 
of independent developers to add value around the PC platform. My 
view is that Microsoft is stepping into a void caused by a failure 
in leadership at Sun Microsystems. Sun has impeded the market with 
legal tactics and government lobbying, to prevent desktop developers 
from innovating with modern programming languages. Sun, as a server 
vendor, has a vested economic interest in today's ``dumb 
client,'' and has used legal and political tactics, as opposed 
to technological innovation, to preserve today's outdated status 
quo.
    Technologists may look back at the 1998-2001 period as a 
period of frozen innovation, as competitors choose to compete on the 
basis of lawsuits and government budgets rather than deliver 
products desired by the market. In my opinion, much of the 
``dot.com'' meltdown has been caused by technological 
stagnation around mid-1990's software architectures. The simplistic, 
dumb-terminal model of the HTML browser did not create a platform 
where programmers could create a distinct value proposition. The 
bottom line is that this industry needs to get back to work. 
Microsoft appears to be taking a leadership role in delivering to 
the programming languages and tools necessary to allow 3rd parties 
build the software systems of tomorrow. This is work that must go 
forward without further delay. The alternative is continued economic 
crisis in the Information Technology industry.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Michel
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027167

From: Don
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft won the settlement a long time ago. Let us move on.



MTC-00027168

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:38pm
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,
    Jerry Proud
    Rt. 1 Box 67
    Marsing,, ID 83639



MTC-00027169

From: Grady B Nichols
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 27945]]

    Please accept the proposed Microsoft Settlement and move on to 
more important business. I believe Microsoft is being punished for 
being innovative and successful.
    Grady B. Nichols
    400 Kiowa St.
    Montevallo, AL 35115-3671



MTC-00027170

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After review of the Proposed Final Judgment in the United States 
vs. Microsoft Corporation case, I find the proposed remedy to be 
insufficient to serve the public interest. The remedy fails to 
fulfill two of the three goals an appropriate solution should 
provide. This Proposed Final Judgment fails to prevent future 
antitrust violations by Microsoft, and fails to undo the 
consequences suffered from Microsoft's violations. I also believe 
the Proposed Final Judgment extends too much protection to 
Microsoft's monopoly of operating systems. Relevant chapter, 
section, subsection information will be enclosed in parenthesis 
where it is believed appropriate and beneficial.
    Instead of preventing future violations, the Proposed Final 
Judgment seems to protect Microsoft from new threats. My main 
concerns are the limitations as described below:
    (III.C.3) Limiting automatic launching of middleware to only 
``similar functionality'' that Microsoft already delivers 
prevents new functionalities from being introduced. This section 
seems to guarantee Microsoft the right to decide what types of 
middleware may automatically run.
    (III.D) By limiting the released APIs to only those Microsoft 
has already used in middleware, Microsoft is protected from 
middleware using new features Microsoft has not yet applied to 
middleware products. Essentially this guarantees Microsoft the first 
chance to use an API feature, and further the right to prevent some 
API features from becoming available to middleware products that 
might use those features in a way that could threaten Microsoft's 
operating system monopoly.
    (III.H exception 1) This exception states Microsoft may invoke 
Microsoft middleware to interoperate with a server maintained by 
Microsoft. Microsoft's .net initiative seems to plan for the 
increased use of servers maintained by Microsoft for many 
activities. By allowing this exception, it may serve to allow 
Microsoft to invoke their middleware on an increasingly frequent 
basis, at least in part eliminating the ability for non-Microsoft 
middleware to effectively compete. Through this exception, Microsoft 
could also illegally maintain the Windows operating system monopoly, 
and even create new monopolies, by placing critical components of 
Windows onto servers maintained by Microsoft.
    (III.H exception 2) This exception provides Microsoft the 
opportunity to override a non-Microsoft middleware product with a 
Microsoft one should the non-Microsoft middleware fail to implement 
a feature the Microsoft middleware implements. This seems to suggest 
Microsoft may be given the right to make sure a Microsoft interest 
will always function, which seems likely to allow further abuses of 
the Microsoft Windows monopoly.
    The Proposed Final Judgment fails to undo the consequences of 
Microsoft's illegal anticompetitive behaviors. If Microsoft had not 
illegally maintained the high application barrier to entry, many 
things would certainly be available to a much broader range of 
operating systems, yet I can find no actions taken to undo these 
damages Microsoft inflicted. Further, Microsoft is actually rewarded 
for the antitrust violations they have been found guilty of.
    Due to Microsoft's maintenance of the applications barrier to 
entry, a large amount of additional power and influence was gained 
by Microsoft. This gained power likely led to many new proprietary 
standards released by Microsoft having unnaturally high acceptance, 
rather than alternative standards being created that would not be 
under the control of Microsoft. Examples of standards released by 
Microsoft (not necessarily affected by Microsoft's antitrust 
violations) include, but are not limited to, Windows-Media Formats, 
Active Server Pages, and DirectX. It is essential to ensure 
functionality provided by Microsoft standards that would have been 
fulfilled by non-Microsoft standards had Microsoft not broken 
antitrust laws be available in a similar fashion to how the non-
Microsoft standards would. Further, Microsoft should not be allowed 
to profit from such standards more than they would have had 
Microsoft not violated antitrust laws.
    In regards to the rewards Microsoft will receive under the 
Proposed Final Judgment, (III.I) allows Microsoft to license (in 
addition to their legal intellectual property) the intellectual 
property that illegally gained value through Microsoft's 
anticompetitive behaviors. This results in Microsoft being provided 
with new revenue streams as a result of their illegal actions. This 
sets a bad precedent by allowing a company to violate antitrust 
laws, and then establish permanent revenue streams from those same 
violations.
    I have another fairly minor concern about the definition under 
(VI.J) of ``Microsoft Middleware'', which states a major 
version is described as one with either a new name or a new whole 
number or number directly to the right of the decimal point. If 
Microsoft were to change their versioning system, it seems this 
could become ineffective. It also seems this may cause Microsoft to 
change their view of when a new version is worth the trouble of 
labeling with a new whole number or number directly to the right of 
the decimal point.
    Overall, the Proposed Final Judgment seems to be lacking on many 
critical points, and provides no way to introduce future revisions 
should they be necessary to correct the oversights of the Proposed 
Final Judgment.
    Richard Urich
    [email protected]
    1146 Pointe Newport terr 208
    Casselberry, FL 32707
    (407) 493--7906



MTC-00027171

From: Eddie Birmingham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement United States Department of Justice:
    I am a Software Developer and have been watching the Microsoft 
case from the beginning. I DO NOT support the US DOJ's position on 
Microsoft for reasons I have outlined below:
    1. The software I am developing is called TLMAXCAP 
(tlmaxcap.com). It is a program designed to help smaller companies/
manufacturers, that ship product on semi trailers, manage their 
shipments. It includes functionality for importing data from their 
existing computer system, printing of important shipping documents 
like Carrier Confirmation Reports and Bills of Lading, and it allows 
an unskilled person to arrange the product on the trailer so that 
weight is distributed evenly over the entire trailer. This product 
was developed with Microsoft Access and Microsoft Visual Basic.
    2. Furthermore, it is only because of products like MS Access 
and MS VB that this new software can be developed by one person 
(me), in a one bedroom apartment for under $7,000 and in only three 
months. In fact, the cost of the software was less than $1,200. This 
doesn't mean I couldn't have used another software alternative. It 
does mean it would have cost ME more time and money and the software 
would probably not have been as feature rich.
    3. Furthermore, by using my software, companies will be able to 
cut down on the number of errors and mis-calculations in the 
shipping process. For example, one ``standard'' operating 
procedure in the shipping industry is to have a semi-trailer weighed 
before it actually ``hits the road''. If the load is not 
arranged properly (e.g. over-weight), the driver returns to the 
Shipper and has the problem resolved. Some of the benefits of 
reducing the number of times this ``procedure'' occurs, 
include: saving Driver time and money, less gas used (less 
pollution), saving the Shipper time and money, and better efficiency 
for everyone in the supply chain.
    4. Furthermore, I believe these facts dispute the claim by the 
US DOJ that I am a helpless consumer. I know what I want and I know 
how to get it. I have molded Access and VB to fit my needs and have 
exploited the features of those two products to offer an 
exceptionally powerful product at an exceptionally attractive cost 
to Customers. I would challenge the Court to come up with a better 
solution to offer the same product, with the same features, as I 
have developed--real OR imagined.
    5. Like most American's, I want to become successful. This level 
of success will be determined by me, but TLMAXCAP is a step in the 
right direction. It just so happens there is free software out on 
the Internet that does some of what my software does. Should I sue 
them? What if other competitors decide to lower their prices in 
response to my software? Should I sue them? Should they sue me for 
having a lower price? What if a price war breaks out and pretty soon 
my software is $1. I can't live off of $1 software,

[[Page 27946]]

so hopefully I would have a better business model that would allow 
me to outlive (in a business sense) some competitors so I could 
start charging something for my software again. Should they sue? 
Should I sue? Okay, so I won't give my software away, but at what 
price does it become anti-competitive?? It would be a race to the 
courthouse! Should I even be having these concerns?? How much am I 
going to have to raise the cost of my software by so I can have a 
little war chest just for litigation? Who wins??
    6. Finally, I am not a Microsoft fanatic. I am not offering this 
information as a confession or a justification, but only so the 
Court knows my real view: I want the best products and I don't care 
who builds them; I believe the free markets and competitive nature 
within, will afford me this. I am typing this e-mail using Netscape 
and Netscape Navigator is my browser of choice. I hate IE and I have 
expressed this distaste to Microsoft and my reasons for this 
``hate''. I would not use IE simply because Microsoft 
developed it (that would make me a fanatic). In fact, my *only* 
complaint about Netscape is that whenever I hear about this DOJ vs. 
Microsoft case I am reminded that one of the major players is 
Netscape (AOL, now) and that leaves a bad taste in my 
mouth--that I am actually supporting the very anti-competitive 
vermin responsible for this whole mess. I would only like to point 
out that Netscape was able to beat its previous competitor, Mosaic, 
with a better product, Navigator (it was once just called Netscape). 
Mosaic was Free, but Netscape was better. So if Netscape was able to 
beat Mosaic in the free markets of the United States, why can't they 
beat IE?? If Netscape was still trying to be competitive (which this 
Court Case has assured is not happening) they would be out showing 
the world how their browser is better because it doesn't crash as 
often, it doesn't do a bunch of stuff on their PC they don't know 
about, they are less prone to virus attacks, they are much easier to 
configure, they aren't tied into a million other parts of the OS so 
there are less parts to break, etc. etc. In any case, I think this 
is a question for the market place to answer, and not the Courts.
    Thank you for your time,
    Eddie Birmingham
    [email protected]



MTC-00027173

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    Robert Vavra
    9897 SE 178th Place
    Summerfield, FL 34491



MTC-00027174

From: Jeff Beverly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that it would be wise to settle for the terms that 
Microsoft has agreed. The Microsoft Corporation has produced and 
licensed high-quality software products to the World. Their software 
is far superior to anything that I have tried using. They have, in 
no way, stopped other companies from competing with them. If 
Microsoft wants certain computer makers to bundle only Microsoft 
products, that's there business. If I don't want to use Microsoft 
products on my computer, I won't buy the computer that is only 
bundled with Microsoft products. I'll buy something else. There are 
plenty of computer manufacturers from which to choose. It is not 
Microsoft's problem that no other computer software maker can make 
an operating system as functional as Windows. The successes of 
Microsoft have been remarkable, and companies like AOL, Netscape, 
and Sun Microsystems are jealous of that success. It was wrong for 
the United States government to take sides with the ``cry 
baby'' companies and weaken, perhaps, the most successful and 
technology-driven company in the world, The Microsoft Corporation.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Beverly



MTC-00027175

From: J.B. Nicholson-Owens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Your Honor,
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft case. I feel that this settlement would 
be contrary to the public interest, and I strongly oppose it. The 
proposed settlement would cement Microsoft's market dominance (a 
dominance largely realized through unsavory means) and, more 
broadly, it would seriously harm competition and innovation in the 
computer industry. Both of these outcomes are highly undesirable.
    The cornerstone of this case involves competition. Historically, 
rival firms and developers have found it very difficult to compete 
with Microsoft for two main reasons; Microsoft's proprietary file 
formats and proprietary Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). 
APIs function as an interface that allows different software 
programs to interact with one another; for example, APIs allow a 
word processing program to work together with a computer's operating 
system. The problem here is that Microsoft prevents competition by 
using secret APIs; Microsoft's applications and operating systems 
employ undocumented program instructions (that is, program 
instructions that are not publicly released). Microsoft places 
valuable functionality in secret APIs and thus prevents competition 
from leveraging that functionality. For example, while many 
developers can write a word processor to attempt to compete with 
Microsoft Word, a non-Microsoft word processor will never offer 
certain features available only through secret APIs--features 
only a Microsoft word processor (such as Microsoft Word) is able to 
provide.
    Furthermore, Microsoft's management of its file formats also 
stifles competition. In addition to being secretive with the details 
of critical file formats, many Microsoft application file formats 
change with successive versions of the program; for example, from 
one version of Microsoft Word to the next. These shifting file 
formats are primarily designed to prevent competition. By rendering 
it impractical for potential competitors to develop compatible 
substitutes which read and write Microsoft file formats--a 
critical step in making a viable product--competitors are 
unable to supply a fully compatible alternative to Word or other 
Microsoft programs. It has been difficult to write a fully 
compatible Microsoft Word alternative because determining the 
Microsoft Word file format is both undocumented and changing. As a 
result of secret APIs and secret changing file formats, rival 
products are rarely developed.
    Given the critical roles played by APIs and file formats, it is 
crucial that any proposed settlement do three things:
    1. Force Microsoft to disclose all of the file formats and APIs 
available in all shipped products (including future enhancements). 
This will end the secrecy around Microsoft's file formats and APIs 
which will help remedy Microsoft's prior abuse of their monopoly.
    2. Force Microsoft to use only disclosed file formats and APIs 
in products it will ship from now on. This will prevent future 
abuses by preventing Microsoft from using newly invented secret file 
formats and secret APIs. Microsoft would remain free to innovate and 
improve their software by changing their APIs and file formats as 
needed, but they would be forced to distribute programs built solely 
on disclosed file formats and APIs.
    3. Allow anyone to develop software programs with the disclosed 
file formats and APIs. This, taken with the previous two actions, 
will allow viable competition with Microsoft. Just because 
specifications are documented does not mean other developers are 
free to develop software based on those specifications, hence the 
need for this third settlement term.
    The settlement in question does not do any of these things; 
rather, Microsoft is free to continue its past practices. If one 
clause requires publication of an API or file format, for example, 
it is accompanied by another clause that prevents a competing 
developer from actually using that information. The final judgement 
leaves Microsoft free to continue shipping software that uses secret 
APIs and secret file formats. Nothing in the final judgement allows 
for or requires provision of Microsoft APIs and file formats

[[Page 27947]]

in a way that will encourage markets and competition.
    Frankly, this situation is no different--and no 
better--than the one that prevailed before the filing of this 
Microsoft anti-trust case. Given this, it is obvious that an 
alternative policy is required, one that will promote fair 
competition, and, fortunately, the broad outlines of such a policy 
are clear. Simply put, Microsoft must be compelled to compete. They 
must be required to publish all their APIs and file formats 
(including future enhancements) with the agreement that other firms 
can write software that complies with these Microsoft 
specifications. Microsoft must also be required to use only the 
published file formats and published APIs in shipped products so 
they cannot continue the anti-competitive practice of developing 
secret functionality. Such an approach would have numerous benefits. 
First, real competition would be a boon to consumers. Consistent 
with the fundamental principles of markets, this would be likely to 
provide lower software prices in many cases. Furthermore, 
competition would also provide a wider product range. Given 
Microsoft's general dominance, most users are afraid to use non-
Microsoft products because they are justifiably concerned that their 
existing Microsoft-based files or documents will be incompatible 
with non-Microsoft programs. Clearly this discourages development by 
other firms, and it locks users into obtaining and using a single 
product.
    By shipping software using only published file formats and APIs, 
however, competing firms would have an incentive to develop 
competing products, some of which would undoubtedly provide greater 
satisfaction and value for many consumers. Finally, competition 
would spur innovation and development in the software industry. In 
many cases, frankly, Microsoft products have prevailed because of 
market dominance rather than quality. Microsoft products contain 
many undesirable features--vulnerability to viruses, poor 
privacy protection and so on--which have been allowed to arise 
and persist because there is little or no pressure to fix them; 
consumers disillusioned by poor Microsoft products typically have 
nowhere else to go. Clearly, competition is the remedy for this.
    To restate and conclude, the point here is simple: competition. 
Competition is the cornerstone of the market, and, if allowed to 
flourish, it usually works well. Microsoft knows this and Microsoft 
has been working very hard to stifle viable competitive 
alternatives. You have the power to limit their aggression against 
competition by refusing the settlement on the grounds that it does 
not adequately address Microsoft's actions in regard to their 
handling of file formats and APIs. Please don't let Microsoft 
continue to prevent consumers from enjoying better computer systems, 
and please encourage a situation where people can pick products 
based on their merits rather than on a Microsoft monopoly. Please 
help contribute to an atmosphere which will foster innovation and 
development in this vital sector of the economy. Please reject the 
Microsoft settlement, because it will allow Microsoft to continue 
making a mockery of consumers, competition, and the computer 
industry.
    Sincerely,
    J.B. Nicholson-Owens
    P.O. Box 2412
    Station A
    Champaign, IL 61825-2412



MTC-00027176

From:OldManFromSceneTwentyFive
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing with respect United States v. Microsoft proposed 
settlement. As a student of technology, specifically Electrical and 
Computer Engineering, and an Open Source (GNU General Public 
License) advocate, I have a somewhat unique vantage point from which 
to analyize Microsoft's reign over the PC industry. When Microsoft's 
overpriced products are compared with open-source free products it 
becomes clear that something is wrong. The software that Microsoft 
offers, in terms of security, useability, and stability, is putrid. 
The situation is somewhat akin to rope and rats being processed into 
canned meats before regulations were passed. Unfortunately, simple 
regulations are not possible in this quickly evolving field. The 
only force capable of protecting the public is competition. 
Microsoft's monopoly is like no other. The nature of the electronic 
frontier allow many new ways for Microsoft to stifle competition, 
and as a result they will always be one step ahead of the law. This 
is why I believe much stronger action is required. I favor honorable 
judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's suggestion, that Microsoft be 
required to provide accurate disclosure of, and support for, their 
programming interfaces (APIs, see Jackson's Finding of Facts), 
enabling third parties to develop interoperable systems with 
Microsoft's own offerings.
    Eric Innis ([email protected])
    Faux Pas III  wrote:
    Under the provisions of the Tunney act, American citizens have 
the right to comment on federal antitrust settlements such as DoJ vs 
Microsoft.
    Information about the suit, including the text of the proposed 
settlement, are here:
    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms--index.htm
    To let the federal government know how you feel about the 
settlement, send mail here, subject `Microsoft Settlement':
    [email protected]
    Inside sources say that responses received thus far have been 
overwhelmingly in favor of Microsoft, and have mostly come from 
Microsoft employees and others that the corporation has solicited to 
submit their opinions.
    In case anybody cares, here's what I said.
    I am writing with respect to my concerns with the settlement 
reached with Microsoft in the DoJ suit, regarding anticompetitive 
practices and abuse of monopoly power. I am a professional working 
in the field of computer network security, and I have witnessed 
throughout the years a host of situations in which the American 
public have been victimized by Microsoft's abuse of their 
overwhelming monopoly. Based on my reading of the proposed 
settlement, I feel obliged to comment that the remedies put forth 
thereby will be greatly inadequate to reintroduce competition into 
the numerous markets currently owned by Microsoft, or to mitigate 
the tangible damage in terms of both direct financial loss and, 
indirectly, through an absence of customer service, attention to 
security and stability and the end-user's rights of fair use.
    As an alternative remedy, I favor the suggestion put forth by 
the honorable judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, that Microsoft be 
required to provide accurate disclosure of, and support for, their 
programming interfaces (APIs, see Jackson's Finding of Facts), 
enabling third parties to develop interoperable systems with 
Microsoft's own offerings. This would, in my opinion as a computing 
professional, reintroduce customer choice into the marketplace and 
encourage merit-based competition, ultimately benefiting consumers 
through improved value offerings as well as a more rapid pace of 
innovation, which has been largely stifled during the period of 
Microsoft's unshakeable dominance.
    In short, I wish to cast my voice into the pool of those who, as 
registered voters and as active participants in the United States 
economy, insist that Microsoft's transgressions be dealt with 
fairly, decisively, effectively, and expeditiously.
    Josh Litherland ([email protected])
    ``give me my shoes, and Ill give you your eye.''



MTC-00027177

From: PCJorgensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice:
    I am still trying to figure out how Microsoft has hurt consumers 
by possibly costing us a few extra dollars for software. I have a 
choice in buying software, I didn't have a choice when I got locked 
into AOL's infamous 5.0. Three years ago, after going through 
several months of abysmal service from AOL, I decided to change to 
MSN. I found out the hard way that AOL 5.0 was set up so that I 
could not change my ISP to MSN. I was locked into AOL without my 
consent and AOL refused to do anything about the problems, except to 
tell me to ``just reload AOL and IE''. After the fifth or 
sixth run-through with AOL ``techs'', I gave up and bought 
another computer to make the change to MSN. MSN was a huge upgrade 
in service for half the price of AOL through my local Costco. That 
is consumer injury, not allowing us to make our own choices. I have 
heard of quite a few others who had the same problem when a family 
member innocently downloaded a ``free'' AOL diskette or CD 
and was locked into AOL. How many of AOL's millions of users are in 
the same situation? Once it's loaded, you are locked into it without 
some expensive tech work to change the mistake. AOL is still 
advertising their version 5.0 on some internet sites. Whatever the 
DOJ believes Microsoft overcharged me was peanuts compared to what 
AOL cost me.

[[Page 27948]]

    AOL was one of the original complainers in the MSFT suit, now 
they are whining again that MSFT has damaged them in the 
``browser wars''. In 1996 when I began on AOL, Netscape 
was part of AOL, but if you had problems with Netscape, you were out 
of luck. MSFT gave away IE and had good consumer help with any 
problems. Consumers who got fed up with Netscape chose IE, and the 
rest is history.
    AOL is whining because they got stuck with a loser, but 
consumers have the right to choose the best product for them.
    My husband and I scrimped and saved to buy Microsoft and other 
stocks over the last ten years as part of our retirement funds. We 
watched helplessly as our retirement funds dropped by the day as the 
Microsoft debacle went on, even crashing our employee IRAs. 
Washington Mutual Bank pulled a scam on our family that cost us over 
$65,000, then hid behind lawyers, legal jargon and a tiny loophole 
in the law. I have spent two years battling them to correct the 
problem with no success. Consumer protection by the DOJ? What a 
joke.
    Patricia Jorgensen
    3503 Alaska Road
    Brier, WA 98036
    (425) 481-7186
    [email protected]



MTC-00027178

From: David Nordgren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I wish to voice my concern about the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft: Section III.A.2 does not prevent Microsoft from 
retaliating for personal computers shipped by OEMs with only a non-
Microsoft operating system installed. This is a traditional non-
competitive practice by Microsoft which unduly strengthens their 
position in the marketplace.
    The judgement is behavioral only and does not offer punitive 
remedies.
    As a citizen I am very concerned that corporations be subject to 
punishment for wrongdoing. In my view the anti-competitive behavior 
by Microsoft was quite significant and there should be proportionate 
punitive remedies.
    Regards,
    David Nordgren
    9174 West Branch Road
    Duluth, MN 55803



MTC-00027179

From: David Bednarczyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is only going to give Microsoft another 
market to consume. The education market has been an Apple domain and 
still is a viable solution for educators. Microsoft 
``donating'' PC hardware and software will only further 
their strong hold in the PC world. Microsoft should give money to 
the schools to be used for whatever technology is needed.
    Thank you,
    David Bednarczyk
    Senior IT Manager
    [email protected]



MTC-00027180

From: Dale Pontius
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it my concern:
    I am writing my comment on the proposed settlement of the United 
States vs Microsoft antitrust case, under the Tunny Act.
    I do not believe the proposed settlement provides for any 
significant benefit to the consumer or improvement in the 
competitive landscape of the software industry.
    Microsoft's past and present actions in monopoly maintenance and 
extension have two key bases: control of Standards such as 
Programming Interfaces and file formats, and preload agreements to 
have their Operating System installed on the vast majority of new 
PCs sold. I will address inadequaces of the proposed settlement on 
each point, in turn.
    The issue of Interface Documentation should parallel cases of 
ATT and IBM, but it falls far short. First, by 
``Interface'' I mean more than just the ``Windows 
API'' cited in the settlement. This should include not just 
``Applications Program Interfaces'' (APIs), but 
``Systems Programming Interfaces'' to enhance competition 
in middleware development, ``Wire Protocols'' to preserve 
competition in Internet, multimedia, and communications development, 
and ``File Formats'' to restore competition in Office 
software, as well as other areas.
    To expand on the `File Formats' for a moment, my 
neighbor was recently ``forced'' to purchase Microsoft 
Office, even though he prefers Word Perfect. He needs to exchange 
documents with colleagues, they use Microsoft Word. Word Perfect 
offers import/export abilities for Microsoft Word documents, but 
because the File Format changes subtly (and unnecessarily, for any 
reason other than anti-competition, according to some) with every 
release, it is impossible for any other company's product to 
interoperate correctly.
    Standards are supposed to be stable, and allow interoperation. 
That was the effect of the antitrust actions against ATT and IBM. 
Telephone and computer interfaces were properly opened and 
documented, and certain amounts (6 months review) of stability 
inserted to allow competition. To me, Microsoft's ``use'' 
of standards seems akin to either malfeasance or misfeasance. Either 
they are wielding standards as a weapon, to hinder competitors, or 
they are terribly inept at crafting stable standards. In either 
case, it is dangerous and counterproductive to leave the situation 
as-is.
    The proposed settlement seems oriented more toward allowing 
inspection of source code by corporate competitors, and makes 
numerous allowances for exclusion. To begin, merely inspecting 
source code can give insight, but is far from proper documentation. 
Second, in the PC Operating System marketplace, the only competitor 
Microsoft has is not a corporation at all, but a loose assortment of 
volunteer individuals. That the /only /significant PC OS competitor 
is based on volunteers and free software is telling, and the 
proposed remedy does nothing to assist this effort, rather it may 
well hinder it.
    My second main basis of contention was preload agreements. If I 
buy a PC from a large manufacture, I essentially have no choice but 
to receive Windows. While a previous court decision outlawed per-CPU 
licensing, Microsoft was free to set contracts that essentially 
amounted to the same thing. They can also the discount rate (price 
below retail) to enforce their terms, because the profit margin is 
so small, and a good discount on Windows can make the difference 
between profit and loss. The PC manufacturer cannot refund my money, 
and nor will Microsoft. (because Microsoft's customer is the PC 
maker, not me.) So essentially, Microsoft has guaranteed income 
based on other companies'' production, also not based on their 
performance. What other company enjoys substantial income 
independent of their actions? How can /any company/ compete 
effectively with them?
    For this problem, I would suggest the additional remedies: The 
cost of Windows must be itemized as part of the cost of the PC 
visible to the customer, and Microsoft must refund that cost upon 
request and suitable assurance that the Windows license has not been 
used by the customer.
    Perhaps the customer needs a `decline license' 
option upon first boot.
    A final item related to this OS license issue. Microsoft must 
not force conditions upon PC manufacturers that will render PCs 
unbootable by any OS other than Windows. Microsoft already puts 
obstacles in the way of multi-booting Windows alongside other OSs, 
I've lived with them for years. At the very least, those obstacles 
cannot be allowed to become more onerous.
    Thank you,
    Dale Pontius
    [email protected]



MTC-00027181

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement of the United 
States vs. Microsoft antitrust case.
    One of the weaknesses I perceive in the proposed settlement is 
that does little to force Microsoft to open up its APIs, 
communications protocols, and file formats to allow interoperability 
between Microsoft and non-Microsoft software products. Do the 
complexity of the Microsoft interfaces whatever mechanisms used to 
enforce their openness must be proactive and penalties swift and 
sure in order to get the interfaces documented in a complete and 
timely manner. Microsoft should also be prevented from using patents 
on various aspects of its interfaces to limit their use by others.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Chaney
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027182

From: PCJorgensen

[[Page 27949]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice:
    Re: Microsoft Settlement I am John D. Jorgensen, a 36-year 
Boeing Aircraft Company employee, an Aeromachinist union steward and 
have had perfect attendance for 25 years.
    Antitrust laws were written for the consumer, not competitors of 
companies! The only consideration the government has given is to 
Microsoft's competitors, leaving the consumer out in the cold. 
Microsoft has never done anything to damage me, AOL has damaged me 
severely. AOL ruined my computer with their 5.0 virus software so 
that I was unable to use any other service provider. AOL is a 
predatory monopoly.
    They give away free CDs and diskettes, you load it into a 
computer and then you are locked into AOL.
    Your system is ruined and in many cases the hard drive is also 
ruined. AOL is more expensive than other ISP's but you cannot use 
them. The government has sued the wrong company. They don't listen 
to the consumer.
    The Department of Justice is doing the bidding of AOL/Time 
Warner, Oracle and Sun Microsystems in the name of saving the 
consumer a few dollars on software. The government has crashed the 
stock market, ruining working people's 401K's to the tune of six 
trillion dollars. The Justice Department should be ashamed. Read the 
case with an open mind, not through the eyes of Penfield Jackson. 
Why did he rule this way with no evidence? The Justice System has to 
protect the 18 states and their attorneys-general. I believe the 
constitution (Article 1, Section 10) will prevail in this one and we 
will have 18 bankrupt states, this is a very sad thought, when it 
should come back against AOL, Oracle and Sun.
    It's absolutely appalling that a company like AOL should be 
allowed any input in this case. The government has let the AOL, Sun 
Microsystems and Oracle foxes into the hen house. The Justice 
Department also has an obligation under law to not damage Microsoft 
stockholders, most of whom do not work for Microsoft. Just the 
opposite has happened. The 18 states'' attorneys-general 
sensationalized the trial and did talk shows. Eighteen states have 
disgraced our monopoly justice system. They should have no say in 
this as they are a ``minority of states''.
    I am very unhappy with the Justice Department and have lost 
confidence in the rule of law. I think the case against Microsoft 
should be dropped. Period. I have read everything written on the 
case, and this is a horrible miscarriage of justice.
    Sincerely,
    John D. Jorgensen
    3503 Alaska Road
    Brier, WA 98036
    (425) 481-7186
    [email protected]



MTC-00027183

From: michaeljanet.mcauliffe @verizon.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of 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 McAuliffe
    11407 17th Pl. NE
    Lake Stevens, WA 98258



MTC-00027184

From: Curtis A. Ridgeway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Make Them Hurt
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Microsoft is unethical in its business practices and has shown 
no remorse. Nothing can be done to made them ethical.
    --Make them provide source code to competitors to allow for 
for interoperation
    --Make them provide internal software specifications to 
competitors.
    I recommend MicroSoft be broken up into 2 or 3 parts to allow 
for competition just like what was done to the phone company.
    A fine should be about $40 Billion real dollars (It must hurt):
    Half for the companies they destroyed like Netscape and half as 
a fine to be paid to the IRS to offset everyone else's tax burden. 
It should not be software which is free to them and only increases 
their monopoly.
    Microsoft should be forced to make a reliable product and 
provide free customer support.
    Everyone suffers from their poor quality and system engineering 
practices. IBM is known as big blue. Windows is known for the 
``Blue Screen'' of the computer crash.
    Just my opinion,
    Curt Ridgeway CC:[email protected]@ 
inetgw,[email protected]@in...



MTC-00027185

From: Charles Aunger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    At long last, this debacle of an antitrust trial between the 
government and Microsoft has sputtered to a settlement. While the 
settlement is weighed slightly against Microsoft, it at least has 
the advantage of ending the litigation.
    This entire lawsuit was, I believe, grounded in much 
misinformation and misunderstanding. A company's 
``dominance'' in any particular market does not 
necessarily mean that it has achieved that status through anything 
other than legal--albeit aggressive--means. I believe this 
to have always been true of Microsoft. Microsoft never manipulated 
the marketplace to force anyone to purchase its system. Rather, its 
pricing policies, its integration, and its reliability attracted 
most people to its product. This is enviable, not despicable.
    When our government engages in a mission to ``level the 
playing field'' for all, there is the natural side effect of 
having to ``dumb down'' those that have been successful, 
and force them to either step aside, or give away their hard-earned 
successes to those less fortunate souls who are not as creative or 
as industrious. This attitude is reflected in the settlement. 
Microsoft is being forced to give up some of its source code to 
others in order to satisfy the government need to level the IT 
playing field.
    While it is useless to object, I find that the settlement at 
least has the advantage of ending the contentious nature of the 
trial. For this reason alone, I find myself supporting it.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Aunger
    Chief Technology Officer
    PO BOX 470671, CELEBRATION, FLORIDA, 34747-0671
    www.vhinternet.com, TEL: 407 709 6559 FAX: 407 650 2703



MTC-00027186

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wanted to let you know I think the proposed settlement of the 
anti-trust action against Microsoft is entirely too lenient, 
considering the fact that their anti-competitive actions have been 
well documented and established in the courts.
    I suggest the best action to take, for the benefit of the 
computing public, would be to force Microsoft to publish their 
source code. This would allow the numerous bugs in it, which 
Microsoft has shown little interest in fixing to be cleaned up by 
the many capable programmers. As an example of how effective this 
process can be, take a look at the Open Source industry, and the 
Linux operating system in particular.
    --A. T. Young
    ([email protected])



MTC-00027187

From: Angela
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mrs. Angela M. Rasely
H.C. 1, Box 2055
Tannersville, PA 18372-9030
570-620-9508
[email protected]
January 27, 2002

[[Page 27950]]

Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you to show my support of the proposed 
settlement between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. I 
feel this agreement is fair and that it is in the best interest of 
the people that this case comes to a final end. Budgets at the state 
and federal levels have been exhausted and we need our government to 
conserve resources.
    Three years has been too long for this lawsuit to occur. I am 
happy to see that the terms of the settlement do not break up 
Microsoft. The concessions do not let Microsoft off easy as they 
will be forced to disclose for use by their competitors internal 
interfaces and protocols. They will also be forced to grant computer 
makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to make it easier 
for competitors to promote their products.
    So, although flawed, I support the settlement and ask your 
office to suppress opposition and make the settlement and reality. 
Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Angela Rasely
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00027188

From: tom.crosby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please see attached.
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Apparently, the federal government defines 
``success'' as meaning ``antitrust'' and seems 
to derive great satisfaction from misapplying this incorrect 
definition in order to destroy ``overly successful'' 
American companies such as Microsoft. It really is a shame, and I am 
very glad a settlement was reached that keeps Microsoft intact.
    This is the second time I have seen the federal government go 
after a successful company. Unlike Microsoft Case, the company in 
the second case was small, very successful and growing very quickly. 
There was also a much larger company selling the same products, in 
the same market. Yet, because a competitor complained, the 
government argued that the company was a monopoly in the marketplace 
(defined to be the users of its equipment). Since the larger company 
was also very successful, growing rapidly, and could supply an 
alternative system, it is hard to understand the thinking in this 
case. In both cases, the real issue seems to be that there were 
mistakes made by management in their strategy and tactics in dealing 
with a competitor. Rather than admit they made these mistakes, they 
have decided to blame someone else for their failures and try to 
obtain additional rewards for their poor work.
    Unfortunately, the litigation cost American taxpayers and the 
Companies untold millions of dollars to prove one thing: the 
government egregiously misapplied outdated antitrust law, written 
for nineteenth century smokestack industries, to 21st century 
technology innovation and business practices.
    While the settlement may spare Microsoft from being broken up, 
it still applies stringent requirements that will substantially 
force it to change the way it conducts business. I will not list all 
of them, as I am sure you are familiar with the settlement. 
Microsoft agreeing to cede its source code for the Windows operating 
system to its competitors is unprecedented in an antitrust 
settlement, and ought to indicate the magnitude of this settlement
    The High Technology Industry is an industry where prices go down 
every year and product functionality improves. I do not understand 
why the Government thinks this is harmful to consumers. If this 
settlement is done incorrectly, I think the consumer will end up 
paying more, especially for support. Support will become a disaster 
as more vendors add their software and do no integration testing 
with all the other vendors'' software. I hope you will close 
this case quickly and with the least possible damage to the computer 
end user.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas W. Crosby Jr.



MTC-00027189

From: Craig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has for years used illegal and unethical means to 
secure a monopoly in the computing industry.
    As I understand the workings of anti-trust law, this calls for ( 
among other things) divestiture of all profits made from the illegal 
activities.
    The proposed school settlement plan brought forth by MS and the 
DOJ, would be a reward rather than a punishment. This settlement 
would allow Microsoft to extend it's monopoly into one of the few 
areas it has been unable to penetrate through it's normal, devious 
devices.
    The proposed settlement also, simply put, does little to insure 
future compliance with the law, as it has far too many loopholes and 
lacks harsh enough penalties, if they violate it or other anti-trust 
laws in the future.
    I would submit that this is the time to send a message to 
industry that, crime doesn't pay. The only way to accomplish this is 
through large fines, which would take away all the profits they have 
made from their illegal activities.
    The only way to insure against future infractions, would be to 
include a ``Crown Jewel'' clause, such as disclosure of 
their source code, or forcing them to re-license it under the GPL.
    I further submit that the arrogance and contempt shown by MS 
throughout the previous proceedings... the very thing that drove the 
original judge to distraction, should be considered heavily in this 
matter. Gates and Company have shown nothing but contempt, for our 
legal system, for the free enterprise system, for the computer 
field, for our government and for their customers.
    I beg you to do something that will actually have an affect on 
MS... not just give them a slap on the wrist.



MTC-00027190

From: Lois M. Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    It is my judgment that the proposed Microsoft compromise 
settlement as worked out will be beneficial to all users and want to 
add my support to the settlement. I understand some competitors are 
fighting this settlement, but it seems to me this matter has dragged 
on long enough and should be brought to a speedy conclusion now that 
a settlement has been agreed upon.
    I hope you are able to complete this matter swiftly.
    Lois M. Russell



MTC-00027191

From: Alan E.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has forged the path to the future in the computer 
industry, giving us quality products at an affordable price. Because 
of Bill Gates, even those who would destroy Microsoft are able to 
successfully operate computers. Microsoft's competition has faltered 
for one reason: Microsoft is the best. The government's assault 
against our nation's finest businessman is a travesty and an affront 
to the concept of liberty.
    Alan Edwards



MTC-00027192

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We are strongly against the state of Florida and other states 
pursuing litigation against Microsoft.
    The outcome of this action will only be incompatible with the 
interests of consumers of Microsoft products. The main consequence, 
we believe, will be in the development of inferior products that 
cost more and do less.
    Additionally, Microsoft needs to be remunerated for its 
innovative product rather than being punished by giving away 
information to competitors. An immediate settlement with Microsoft, 
without further costly litigation, is in the consumers interest 
rather than pumping up the CV's of the various Justice Department 
members.
    James P. Ahearn, M.D.
    Carol M. Ahearn



MTC-00027193

From: Richard Forno
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw
    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.

[[Page 27951]]

    For the record, I am the Chief Technology Officer for a Dulles, 
VA information security firm that works closely with the US national 
security community. I am the former Chief Security Officer for 
Network Solutions, Inc. (acquired in June 2000 by VeriSign) and have 
held other information security positions in the United States 
government, including the US House of Representatives.
    I am the co-author of ``The Art of Information Warfare 
(1999) and ``Incident Response'' (2001) and pen a 
recurring column on information security topics at 
Securityfocus.Com. Further, several of my security-oriented 
whitepapers are available at my personal website, Infowarrior.org. I 
am also a frequent conference presenter and an adjunct lecturer at 
the American University, and conduct recurring lectures at the 
National Defense University in Washington, DC.
    I wish to thank Paul Johnson for his invaluable assistance in 
drafting many of the following paragraphs, which voice the comments 
of many others in my profession.
    I strongly urge an appropriate outcome that favors the computing 
community and not the proprietary and profiteering needs of a proven 
monopoly.
    Is/
    Richard F. Forno
    Chief Technology Officer
    Dulles, Virginia Security Firm
    www.infowarrior.org (personal site)
    [email protected]
    Summary of Key Issues
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Over the past decade Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated a 
willingness to evade or ignore regulations aimed at curbing its 
monopoly power. There is no reason to expect this behaviour 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 modern 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.
    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

[[Page 27952]]

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.
    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 when 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

[[Page 27953]]

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 behaviour 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.
    As a final note, I would like to close with the same advice I 
give to my clients in the United States government regarding 
Microsoft products: Use at your own risk--if the technical 
problems with these products (security and stability) don't give you 
reason for concern, the inability to escape to an alternative is an 
even harsher problem to contend with. Microsoft's products and 
business strategies have, and continue to be, a clear and present 
danger to the security of our national information infrastructures. 
It is my hope that this legal action will be one that is not only 
beneficial to the technology economy but our national information 
security posture as well.
    Richard F. Forno
    Chief Technology officer
    Dulles, Virginia Security Firm
    www.infowarrior.org (personal site)
    [email protected]



MTC-00027195

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    Elizabeth Slaughter
    1228 W. Lincoln Ave
    Albany, GA 31707



MTC-00027196

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I sure hope that our Government does not hinder Microsoft when 
this case is finally settled. I resent the fact that a successful 
business can be seen as a threat to anyone.
    I use their products and enjoy them immensely.
    I believe that the Government should leave Mocrosoft alone to 
run their successful business without outside interference.
    Thank you,
    Pete O'Neill
    3169 Trinity Street
    Oceanside, New York 11572
    e-mail [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027197

From: Hal Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:08pm
Subject:
CC:
[email protected]@
inetgw
7024 Augusta National
Fayetteville, PA 17222-9418
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a person who has been in the technology industry for some 
time (I was first involved with Univac I Serial number 1) I was 
disappointed to see the government bring suit against Microsoft. I 
am however happy with the settlement that was reached and I hope it 
is well accepted by all parties, including those states that still 
refuse to settle.
    The settlement, that has been fairly mediated over three years, 
is equitable to all parties. It also answers many of the problems 
brought forth by Microsoft's competitors and resolves them fairly. 
For example, I think it is demonstrative of Microsoft's good 
intentions that it agreed to be monitored by a three-person 
Technical Committee, and open up its intellectual property in the 
internal interfaces of its Windows operating system programs to its 
competitors.
    I have used numerous Microsoft products for about 20 years and 
have found them innovative and productive for even casual users. The 
cost of these products has dropped considerably during the years of 
my use. To discourage this kind of innovation is detrimental to 
users as well as others that would work hard to create other such 
products. The harassment of this company has, in my opinion been bad 
for our country, possibly even the world economy.
    Responsible controls are important, of course. But extreme 
control is detrimental to the best interests of an average computer 
user.
    I am grateful that you would take the time to consider my 
thoughts on this matter. Please use them, as well as those from all 
the other Microsoft supporters to work out what is in the public's 
best interest.
    Sincerely,
    Hal Stone
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00027198

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:13pm
Subject: Micro-soft Settlement
    I strongly endorse Mary Martin's letter < SENIOR COALITATION 
PRESIDENt it's time for all of us to Unite in this 6reat country o f 
ours and quit acting like a bunch of ILLITERATES; we need to get 
this country's economy back on track and get on with tihe order of 
the day.
    There will always be some want something for nothing, and will 
do anything to get it. The Justice is needed Now''. Thank you 
for giving me the opportunity to express myself.
    JKOHN MILLER
    e-mail addrress [email protected]



MTC-00027199

From: JOYCE E BLANKENSHIP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:13pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to urge the Justice Department to stop the 
litigation against Microsoft. I think the settlement is fair to 
everyone except of course, Microsoft itself. I personally use 
Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Word and other programs. I am 79 
years old and have found these programs easy to learn and to use. I 
would not be interested at all in changing to other programs.
    Please stop the litigation. Thank you.
    Joyce E. Blankenship
    1593 Manor Drive
    Salem, Ohio 44460



MTC-00027200

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U. S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I wish to express my satisfaction and agreement with the 
Attorney General's decision to end the Justice Department's 
antitrust lawsuit againsy Microsoft.
    It is my understanding the agreement to do so was arrived at 
after extensive negotiations with a court-appointed mediator.
    It is also my understanding Microsoft has agreed to license its 
Windows operating system products to the twenty largest computer 
makers on identical terms and

[[Page 27954]]

conditions including price, and to document and disclose for use by 
its competitors, various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows'' operating system products.
    It doesn't seem there should be a need for any future lawsuits 
against Microsoft. The company has already compromised considerably 
in this suit and should not be distracted from innovation and 
progress any longer.
    Sincerely,
    C. G. Horton



MTC-00027201

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As the Government nears the decision phase of the Microsoft 
Settlement in the Anti-Trust case against Bill Gates, I would like 
to add my comments as a United States Citizen and tax payer.
    It is my firm conviction that the entire case against Microsoft 
has been ill advised and a total waste of tax payer dollars. Bill 
Gates and his company has revolutioned the world, in the footsteps 
of Alexander G Bell nd Thomas Edison. Rather than punish him and his 
employees, he deserves a monument in Washington DC. His innovations 
and foresight have brought the computer age to to virtually every 
American. His business practices have not broken rational laws. He 
exercised his Freedom as a Capitalist. Has this nation forgotten the 
principles upon which it was founded? Are we to forever continue to 
apolgize for creating a society which the entire population of the 
planet wishes it could emulate, with the minor excetion of some 
religious fanatics bent upon destroying the very thing that 
represents life as we know it?
    Has not the horrific attack on the American way of life on Sept 
11 not shown every thinking person that we must defend the 
Capitalist sytem and not destroy ourselves?
    Bill Gates deserves our gratitide, not a vindictive lawsuit and 
punishment designed to gratify the sour grapes of those who could 
achieve or even conceive of his accomplishments.
    Please use your authority to dismiss all pending charges, and 
allow Mr. Gates to continue to strengthen our economy and boost our 
standing in the world arena. As the United States faces an ever 
increasing rise of hostility from those who seek our destruction, 
and those to evil to care, it is imperative to prove to the world 
that Capitalism is the only valid and rational form of economics and 
a desirable one to follow. By allowing Bill Gates and Microsoft to 
continue as a viable enterprise, you will show the world we stand by 
our convictions.



MTC-00027202

From: Nan Cummins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:14pm
Subject: Settlement
    The settlement as stated is fair to all and should be excepted 
as is. Jealous competitors, (who started this whole problem) and 
others, are trying to undermine the settlement. This should not be 
aloud to happen. I urge you not to let this happen. Settle this 
NOW!!! Let Microsoft do what it does best.
    Sincerely
    Nan Cummins



MTC-00027203

From: Daniel Kruse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, under no circumstances, call this ``settlement'' a 
settlement. If anything, it'll make Microsoft an even more powerful 
monopoly. This ``settlement'' is a joke and a sham. I do 
not agree with this settlement!
    Daniel Lee Kruse



MTC-00027204

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer user who regularly needs to communicate with 
computers running a Microsoft operating system, the wording of this 
judgement causes me great concern. Microsoft certainly should not be 
allowed to use its predominant position in the operating system 
market to close the lines of communication to other software.
    The following is quoted from an article by Robert Cringely, Dec. 
6, 2001, and it describes loopholes Microsoft could use to shut out 
the free software community:
    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 M icrosoft 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.'' ...
    Brian J. Casten
    [email protected]



MTC-00027205

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    Please end the Microsoft lawsuit and settle the case. I firmly 
beleive that Microsoft has been a tremendous boon to the economy and 
I have benefitted greatly from their technology and products. I want 
to see the case settled immediately in order for our economy to 
begin a comeback.
    Thank you.
    James E. McMillen
    3368 Corsica Way
    Oceanside, CA 92056
    760-435-9200



MTC-00027206

From: Matt B.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As you have most likely already heard, the Microsoft settlement 
is too lax against Microsoft. It cannot be properly enforced.
    To remedy this, I would suggest breaking Microsoft up into three 
companies: Windows Inc. (operating system), Microsoft (software), 
and Web. This would prevent MS from taking over all three markets.



MTC-00027207

From: Dixon Teter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1/27/02
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Sirs:
    I sincerely hope that the Department of Justice will not allow 
AOL's recently filed suit against Microsoft to delay the ending of 
that travesty.
    As a consumer I greatly enjoy using the superior products that 
Microsoft offers. The fact that they have had to waste hundreds of 
millions of dollars fighting to retain their own property has cost 
me personally.
    By Microsoft not being able to use that money for growth and 
product development I have been unfairly denied access to better and 
less expensive products.
    I have been denied that by this suit. This suit was brought 
neither by the millions of satisfied Microsoft customers, nor by 
their vendors. It was brought by failing competitors. AOL is not a 
failing competitor of Microsoft's, quite the contrary, they have the 
dominant market share to Microsoft's small minority slice.
    But, AOL is failing. Their suit is only a ploy to distract from 
their own failings. It is also a clear attempt to become another 
parasite itching to feast off of Microsoft's success.
    This is America. isn't it? Don't we stand for free trade and 
freedom--not ``beat your ``competition with dirty 
politics'', ? The United States government is there to protect 
private property, isn't it? Where are Microsoft's private property 
protections? Why am I being penalized because some other company has 
run crying to ``Big Mother'' rather than standing up and 
trying to win fairly?
    AOL must not be allowed to do this. Please restore the full 
faith and trust in the Department of Justice by dismissing not only 
AOL's frivilous and groundless suit, but also and more importantly, 
the one against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Dixon Teter, Ph.D.



MTC-00027208

From: sysadmin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:21pm
Subject: Microsoft is a blackhole
    I feel that any settlement the DOJ makes with Microsoft will 
cause more harm than good. Microsoft should be forced to take full 
responsibility for the monopolistic blackhole they have created.
    Since Microsoft has embarked on a disinformation campaign, many 
people feel

[[Page 27955]]

that Microsoft is the only software company. This is not true.
    There are many alternatives that could fill the void if 
Microsoft were to fail. More specifically, there is Sun 
Microsystems, Apple, IBM, and and many Linux companies.
    Bill Gates will argue that his company is helping create 
standards of quality. This statement follows hundreds of security 
holes, thousands of bugs, and the technical documents that label 
Widows as the most unstable OS.
    Microsoft sucks up everything in its wake. Currently, Microsoft 
has been attacking the Open Source movement. According to Microsoft, 
the Opensource movement (more specifically the GPL) is a cancer. 
They call it a cancer because they can not control it. Normally, 
Microsoft would purchase any competing idea and store it away. They 
store every bit of creativity the software industry has. If anything 
it is Microsoft, that is the cancer. It should be removed.
    Your's truely,
    Thedore Knab
    Systems Engineer [UNIX]
    Washington College
    300 Washington College
    Chestertown, MD 21620
    Office: 410-810-7419
    Fax: 410-778-7830
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00027209

From: Einer Elhauge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:20pm
Subject: To Renata Hesse,
    To Renata Hesse,
    Please find my Tunney Act comments attached.
    Sincerely,
    Einer Elhauge
    Professor of Law
    Harvard Law School
    1575 Massachusetts Ave.
    Cambridge, MA 0213 8
    TEL: 617-496-0860
    FAX: 617-496-0861
    EMAIL: [email protected]
     
    UNITED STATES v. MICROSOFT, No. 98-1232 (CKK)
    TUNNEY ACT COMMENTS OF PROFESSOR EINER ELHAUGE ON THE PROPOSED 
SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND MICROSOFT
    I have been a strong supporter of the Bush Administration and 
its Antitrust Division.
    But I am also a strong supporter of the Court of Appeals 
decision in this case,\1\ and even if I were not, the legal 
conclusions and factual findings sustained in that opinion must be 
treated as authoritative for this Tunney Act proceeding. In my view, 
it would set a terrible precedent contrary to the public interest if 
a unanimous en banc opinion that found the most important firm in 
our economy committed repeated serious antitrust violations lacking 
any procompetitive or technological justification, as the opinion 
here did, received only the largely meaningless enforcement provided 
by the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the United States?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Elhauge, ``Competition Wins in Court,'' 
New York Times, (June 30, 200I).
    \2\ The points addressed in this memo apply both to the 
initial proposed settlement, and the revised proposed settlement to 
which nine states have agreed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I submit this Tunney Act comment as a professor of antitrust law 
and because of my interest in the proper development of antitrust 
law. I have not been paid by anyone else to work on the Microsoft 
case, and do not submit this comment on behalf of any other party. I 
am instead submitting this filing pro bono, on behalf of the public 
interest. I am a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where I 
teach antitrust law, but submit these comments in my personal 
capacity, and the views expressed here are not offered on behalf of, 
nor intended to express the views of, Harvard University.
    The key finding of the district court, which I think has not 
received enough attention, is that, to foreclose its rivals, 
Microsoft engaged in technological bundling of other software into 
its operating system that not only had no procompetitive or 
technological justification,\3\ but actually worsened the 
technological performance of its own products. The district court 
found Microsoft'' s technological integration made its product 
work more slowly:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ United States v. Microsoft, 84 F.Supp.2d 9, 
53-58 (D.DC 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``[A]ccording to several standard programs used by 
Microsoft to measure system performance, the removal of Internet 
Explorer by the prototype program slightly improves the overall 
speed of Windows 98. Given Microsoft's special knowledge of its own 
products, the company is readily able to produce an improved 
implementation of the concept illustrated by Felten's prototype 
removal program. In particular, Microsoft can easily identify 
browsing-specific code that could be removed from shared files, 
thereby reducing the operating system's memory and hard disk 
requirements and obtaining performance improvements even beyond 
those achieved by Felten.'' \4\ Nor was this reduction in 
speed compensated for by increased stability or security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id. at 54 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the contrary, the district court found that Microsoft's 
technological bundling made its operating system both more prone to 
crashing and more susceptible to virus infections.
    ``Microsoft has harmed even those consumers who desire to 
use Internet Explorer, and no other browser, with Windows 98. To the 
extent that browsing-specific routines have been commingled with 
operating system routines to a greater degree than is necessary to 
provide any consumer benefit, Microsoft has unjustifiably 
jeopardized the stability and security of the operating system. 
Specifically, it has increased the likelihood that a browser crash 
will cause the entire system to crash and made it easier for 
malicious viruses that penetrate the system via Internet Explorer to 
infect non-browsing parts of the system.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. at 53 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A fortiori, the district court found that those who did not want 
Internet Explorer suffered worsened technological performance from 
Microsoft's bundling because they were saddled with ``an 
operating system that runs more slowly than if Microsoft had not 
interspersed browsing-specific routines throughout various files 
containing routines relied upon by the operating system'' and 
that meant ``performance degradation, increased risk of 
incompatibilities, and the introduction of bugs.`` \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The district court also found that, in addition to conferring no 
technological benefit on its own products, Microsoft's bundling 
degraded the technological performance of rival products. The court 
concluded that Microsoft's:
    ``actions forced OEMs either to ignore consumer preferences 
for Navigator or to give them a Hobson's choice of both browser 
products at the cost of increased confusion, degraded system 
performance, and restricted memory.
    Microsoft forced those consumers who otherwise would have 
elected Navigator as their browser to either pay a substantial price 
(in the forms of downloading, installation, confusion, degraded 
system performance, and diminished memory capacity) or content 
themselves with Internet Explorer.
    None of these actions had pro-competitive 
justifications.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. at 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft was further found guilty of other technological 
manipulation that inflicted technological degradation on other 
products.
    ``Microsoft went beyond encouraging ICPs [Internet Content 
Providers] to take advantage of innovations in Microsoft's 
technology, explicitly requiring them to ensure that their content 
appeared degraded when viewed with Navigator rather than Internet 
Explorer'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indeed, the district court even found that Microsoft engaged in 
efforts that resulted in technological degradation for software 
users generally.
    ``Finally, by pressuring Intel to drop the development of 
platform-level NSP software, and otherwise to cut back on its 
software development efforts, Microsoft deprived consumers of 
software innovation that they very well may have found valuable, had 
the innovation been allowed to reach the marketplace. None of these 
actions had pro-competitive justifications.`` \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The findings that, to foreclose rivals, Microsoft engaged in 
technological integration that had no procompetitive or 
technological justification were fully vindicated by the Court of 
Appeals. That Court concluded:
    ``Microsoft proffers no justification for two of the three 
challenged actions that it took in integrating IE into 
Windows--excluding IE from the Add/Remove Programs utility and 
commingling browser and operating system code.
    Although Microsoft does make some general claims regarding the 
benefits of integrating the browser and the operating system, it 
neither specifies nor substantiates those claims. Nor does it argue 
that either excluding IE from the Add/Remove Programs

[[Page 27956]]

utility or commingling code achieves any integrative benefit .... 
Microsoft failed to meet its burden of showing that its conduct 
serves a purpose other than protecting its operating system 
monopoly.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ United States v. Microsoft, 253 F. 3d 34, 66-67 
(DC Cir. 2001) (en banc) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Court of Appeals also repeatedly found that 
Microsoft engaged in a series of other anticompetitive acts that 
foreclosed the freedom to choose the best technology and had no 
procompetitive justification or technological benefit whatsoever. 
The Court of Appeals found that Microsoft's primary justification 
for its exclusive contracts with Original Equipment Manufacturers 
``borders upon the frivolous,'' and that with one narrow 
exception, ``all the OEM license restrictions at issue 
represent uses of Microsoft's market power to protect its monopoly, 
unredeemed by any legitimate justification.'' \11\ The 
Court of Appeals similarly found that Microsoft'' s exclusive 
contracts with Internet Access Providers had no procompetitive 
justification, \12\ that ``Microsoft . . . offered no 
procompetitive justification for its exclusive dealing arrangements 
with the ISVs [Independent Software Vendors],`` \13\ that 
``Microsoft offers no procompetitive justification for the 
exclusive dealing arrangement'' with Apple,\14\ and that 
``Microsoft offered no procompetitive justification for the 
default clause that made the First Wave Agreements exclusive as a 
practical matter.'' \15\ The Court of Appeals also found 
that: ``Microsoft's conduct related to its Java developer tools 
served to protect its monopoly of the operating system in a manner 
not attributable either to the superiority of the operating system 
or to the acumen of its makers, and . . . Microsoft offers no 
procompetitive explanation for its campaign to deceive 
developers.'' \16\ Finally, the Court of Appeals found: 
``Microsoft does not ... offer any procompetitive justification 
for pressuring Intel not to support cross-platform 
Java.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at 63-64 (emphasis aded).
    \12\ Id. at71.
    \13\ Id. at 72 (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals did 
not reach the question whether Microsoft's dealings with Internet 
Content Providers had a procompetitive justification because the 
appellate court concluded the trial court had not found an 
anticompetitive effect from this conduct. Id. at71.
    \14\ Id. at 74 (emphasis added).
    \15\ Id. at 76 (emphasis added).
    \16\ Id. at 77 (emphasis added).
    \17\ Id. at 77 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    True, the Court of Appeals did not specifically pass on the 
district court's findings that in fact Microsoft's efforts at 
technological and nontechnological foreclosure had adverse 
technological effects on the performance of its own products. But 
the Court of Appeals statements repeatedly sustaining the district 
court findings that Microsoft'' s whatsoever imply approval of 
those more specific findings as well. In any event, none of the 
district court findings that Microsoft's efforts at technological 
and nontechnological foreclosure had adverse technological effects 
was reversed as clearly erroneous by the Court of Appeals, and thus 
each of them remains the binding law of the case.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id. at 117-118 (sustaining the district court 
findings of facts except for those few that the court of appeals 
held were clearly erroneous).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These prior findings cannot be second-guessed at this stage, and 
frame the Tunney Act question. The Court of Appeals decision is 
authoritative on lower courts, and all prior district court findings 
of fact that were not reversed by the Court of Appeals are also 
binding under the law of the case. Nor would a Tunney Act proceeding 
be an appropriate forum for second-guessing the accuracy of the 
findings in prior opinions since such a proceeding does not purport 
to redo the fact finding process. To be sure, neither the Court of 
Appeals nor the prior district court judge ever reviewed the 
proposed settlement or made any Tunney Act ruling about whether it 
was in the public interest. But my point is not that these prior 
findings settle the Tunney Act question. My point is rather that any 
Tunney Act ruling must assume the correctness of these findings.
    Further, this is not a typical case of settlement proposed 
before trial or appeal, where the court conducting a Tunney Act 
proceeding has reason to defer to government authorities on the 
uncertainties and costs of securing and defending a judgment of 
liability. Here, the trial and appeal are already over, and the 
findings and judgments have already been secured and successfully 
defended. Nor is this anything like an earlier Microsoft Tunney Act 
proceeding, where the judge that disapproved a proposed settlement 
was reversed for relying on facts he read in a book but the 
government's complaint never alleged and were never tested by the 
adversary process and appeal.\19\ Here the relevant facts were 
alleged by the Department of Justice, found true in an adversary 
proceeding, and sustained by an en banc court of appeals. Thus the 
Tunney Act question before this court should properly be framed as 
follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448 
(DCCir. 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given an antitrust defendant that has been found repeatedly 
willing to engage in anticompetitive technological and 
nontechnological conduct that had no procompetitive justification at 
all, but indeed degraded technological performance, is it in the 
public interest to approve a settlement that preserves the 
discretion of that defendant to engage in technological bundling and 
design that excludes rivals and lacks any demonstrable technological 
benefit?
    II
    Bundling two products in a way that confers some positive 
technological benefit but also anticompetitively forecloses rivals 
raises very troubling issues about whether courts can really assess 
and weigh the magnitude of the conflicting effects. Such a case 
might pose serious concerns about whether efforts to remedy the 
anticompetitive effects would have the adverse consequence of 
deterring technological innovation. In prior writing with co-
authors, I have been so troubled that such an antitrust inquiry 
might itself deter technological progress that I proposed that 
product bundling that confers any technological benefit (that 
consumers could not themselves equally achieve through their own 
bundling) should be deemed a single product, and thus not 
challengeable as illegal bundling even though any technological 
benefit might possibly be outweighed by greater anticompetitive 
effects.\20\ Similarly, my co-authors and I concluded that product 
design decisions that advantage an associated defendant product over 
rival products should not be deemed a technological tie unless the 
product design lacks any technological benefit.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See X AREEDA, ELHAUGE & HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW 
ï¿½ 1746 (1996).
    \21\ 21 See X AREEDA, ELHAUGE & HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST 
LAW ï¿½ 1747 (1996) (offering analysis and collecting cases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed test was repeatedly cited with approval and 
largely adopted in an earlier Court of Appeals decision that 
reviewed a claim that Microsoft's conduct violated a consent 
decree.\22\ However, the en banc Court of Appeals decision in this 
case has interpreted antitrust liability more expansively. It 
decided that, for purposes of both monopolization and tying claims, 
a positive technological benefit from technological integration or 
design is not a sufficient defense, but rather must be balanced 
against any anticompetitive effect.\23\ This test a fortiori 
condemns the cases without any technological benefit that would be 
condemned under my test, but also condemns some technological 
integration or design that does confer a positive technological 
benefit. Such a test, if adopted in a consent decree, might raise 
serious questions as to whether in practice enforcement would be 
either unfeasible or unduly deter technological progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ United States v. Microsoft, 147 F.3d 935,948-51 
(DC Cir. 1998).
    \23\ 253 F.3d at 59, 65-67, 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I was, however, of the view that the Court of Appeals misapplied 
this test because it considered technological benefits that could 
equally be obtained by consumer bundling. See Elhauge, ``The 
Court Failed My Test,'' The Washington Times, A-19 (July 
10, 1998). The Court of Appeals did so because it mistakenly thought 
that otherwise the test could not distinguish the case of an 
integrated operating system distributed on three diskettes, but the 
test does in fact distinguish this case when properly combined with 
the threshold test that consumers desire the unbundled product. Id.; 
X AREEDA, ELHAUGE & HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW 1743 (1996). This 
threshold test should be applied before a court.
    But it is an entirely different matter where, as here, a firm 
technologically bundles or designs its products in a way that 
anticompetitively forecloses its rivals without any procompetitive 
or technological justification whatsoever, and indeed retards 
technological progress. Such behavior lacks any plausible 
justification, or even the patina of one, and must be strongly 
condemned and rooted out of a competitive economy. Thus, the minimum 
requirement that any settlement must meet before it can be said to

[[Page 27957]]

have provided the remedies necessary to protect the public interest 
from the continued threat of Microsoft's antitrust violations would 
be to at least restrict Microsoft from continuing to technologically 
bundle or design products in ways that foreclose its rivals but do 
not improve technological performance at all. This proposed 
settlement fails this test. The bottom line is that, while the 
settlement provides some restrictions on various nontechnological 
methods of foreclosing rival applications, it does nothing effective 
about technological foreclosure. It does not even bar efforts to 
foreclose rivals with technological manipulations that affirmatively 
harm the performance of Microsoft products.
    Nothing in the proposed settlement prevents Microsoft from 
anticompetitively foreclosing rivals by simply selling its operating 
system with other Microsoft software included, even if such bundling 
confers no technological benefit whatsoever or even harms 
performance. Nor does the proposed settlement even bar Microsoft 
from purposefully designing its operating system in ways that confer 
no technological benefit but make rival software work poorly. In 
both respects, the settlement deletes reaches any of the five 
grounds under which a defendant might prove that two items that meet 
this threshold test nonetheless constitute a single product. Id. at 
1744-50 (laying out the five grounds). restrictions the trial 
judge had previously ordered as necessary remedies during any period 
Microsoft was not broken up.\24\ Given the judicial findings of a 
repeated past willingness to subordinate technological performance 
to the goal of anticompetitively foreclosing rivals, it is hard to 
see how it can be in the public interest to leave Microsoft 
unrestricted in these ways.\25\ The proposed settlement leaves 
Microsoft free to harm competition at the cost of technological 
progress in precisely the ways it was found to have done so in the 
past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See United States v. Microsoft, 97 F.Supp.2d 59, 68 
(D.DC 2000) (``Microsoft shall not, in any Operating System 
Product distributed six or more months after the effective date of 
this Final Judgment, Bind any Middleware Product to a Windows 
Operating System unless: (i). Microsoft also offers an otherwise 
identical version of that Operating System Product in which all 
means of End- User Access to that Middleware Product can readily be 
removed (a) by OEMs as part of standard OEM preinstallation kits and 
(b) by end users using add-remove utilities readily accessible in 
the initial boot process and from the Windows desktop; and (ii) when 
an OEM removes End-User Access to a Middleware Product from any 
Personal Computer on which Windows is preinstalled, the royalty paid 
by that OEM for that copy of Windows is reduced in an amount not 
less than the product of the otherwise applicable royalty and the 
ratio of the number of amount in bytes of binary code of (a) the 
Middleware Product as distributed separately from a Windows 
Operating System Product to (b) the applicable version of 
Windows.''); id. at 67 (``Microsoft shall not take any 
action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance 
of any non- Microsoft Middleware when interoperating with any 
Windows Operating System Product without notifying the supplier of 
such non-Microsoft Middleware in writing that Microsoft intends to 
take such action, Microsoft's reasons for taking the action, and any 
ways known to Microsoft for the supplier to avoid or reduce 
interference with, or the degrading of, the performance of the 
supplier's Middleware.'')
    \25\ Indeed, the prior district court remedies would seem 
to constitute the law of the case of what remedies are necessary to 
remedy the antitrust violations that were inflicted through 
technological bundling and design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indeed, in both respects the proposed settlement actually 
worsens this problem. First, the proposed settlement not only fails 
to prohibit, but appears to sanctify bundling despite the lack of 
any technological justification by providing that Microsoft has the 
``sole discretion'' to decide what to include in its 
operating system.\26\ Second, the proposed settlement not only fails 
to prohibit, but gives Microsoft affirmative incentives to design 
its operating system in ways that work poorly with rival products 
because that would create a ``functionality'' problem that 
justifies express exclusion of rival products under the proposed 
settlement.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Revised Proposed Final Judgment VI.U.
    \27\ Id. at III.C.1, III.H.1,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    True, the proposed settlement does impose some restrictions. It 
would prohibit Microsoft from using agreements or threats to prevent 
computer makers or software developers from dealing with Microsoft's 
rivals. It would also prohibit Microsoft from making it impossible 
for computer makers or buyers to customize their operating system to 
add or substitute rival software. And it requires Microsoft to 
disclose the interface codes or server protocols necessary to design 
rival software to run on its operating system.
    But none of these restrictions matter if Microsoft is free to 
engage in technological foreclosure. If the computer makers and 
consumers who buy the Microsoft operating system are forced to take 
a technological bundle that (without any technological benefit) 
includes other Microsoft software, those computer makers and 
consumers will have little incentive to substitute rival software, 
even if the rival software is technologically superior. For example, 
suppose Microsoft and its rival both offer software that costs $10 
to make, but consumers value the rival software at $15 and the 
Microsoft software at $10. Without bundling, computer makers or 
consumers would buy the rival's superior software. But with 
bundling, the Microsoft software is already included in the price of 
the operating system. Thus the computer makers or consumers would 
not pay $10 to get the rival software when the improved performance 
is only worth $5. Computer makers or consumers will have even less 
incentive to use rival software that works worse because Microsoft 
purposefully designed its operating system in ways that confer no 
technological benefit but create interoperability problems for rival 
software.
    Antitrust law and settlements should not impede genuine product 
innovation. If Microsoft bundled software to achieve technological 
benefits that would not be available if buyers combined their own 
software choices, then bundling should be permitted. But the appeals 
court concluded that Microsoft failed to show any technological 
benefit for its technological bundling, and the proposed settlement 
leaves Microsoft free to repeat bundling that lacks any 
technological merit. Likewise, if an operating system design 
decision makes Microsoft software run better, Microsoft should be 
free to adopt it even if it hampers rivals until they make 
modifications to take similar advantage of the improvement. But the 
proposed settlement leaves Microsoft free to make design decisions 
that actually degrade operating system performance in order to 
create problems for rival software.
    In another binding ruling, the Court of Appeals held that:
    ``The Supreme Court has explained that 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.''\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ United States v. Microsoft., 253 F.3d 34, 102 
(DCCir.2001) (en banc) (emphasis added) (citing Ford Motor v. United 
States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972), and United States v. United Shoe, 
391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed settlement remedies fail this obligation because 
they do not unfetter the market from the past anticompetitive 
technological bundling and product design. The proposed remedies do 
not terminate the illegal monopoly. The proposed remedies do not 
deny Microsoft the fruits of its statutory violation since Netscape 
and Java remain technologically foreclosed with their diminished 
market shares. Nor do the proposed remedies do anything to prevent 
Microsoft in the future from again inflicting the same 
anticompetitive product bundling and design that forecloses rivals 
but lacks any technological benefit.
    III
    Many have apparently been under the misimpression that the 
government plaintiffs could no longer pursue remedies against 
technological bundling because the government plaintiffs dropped 
their tying claim. But this decision to drop the tying claim, which 
I applauded,\29\ did not reduce the need or ability to restrict 
technological foreclosure as a remedy for the antitrust violations 
that the Court of Appeals found Microsoft committed. This is true 
for two reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Elhauge, ``A Smart Move on Microsoft,'' 
Boston Globe (Sept. 11, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, dropping the  1 tying claim did not amount to 
dropping all claims against technological bundling because the Court 
of Appeals specifically found that Microsoft's technological 
integration violated Sherman Act  2.\30\ Thus, at a 
minimum, the prior findings require an effective remedy against 
technological bundling that forecloses any rival software that could 
pose a competitive threat to the operating system itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 253 F.3d at 64-67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, it is well-established law that antitrust remedies may 
need to prohibit conduct beyond what would violate antitrust law in 
order to be effective. Indeed, if all antitrust remedies did was 
repeat the legal prohibitions contained in existing law, they would 
hardly add anything. In particular, the Supreme Court decision in 
Loew's held that, when a defendant has engaged in illegal

[[Page 27958]]

bundling, ``To ensure .. that relief is effectual, otherwise 
permissible practices connected with the acts found to be illegal 
must sometimes be enjoined.`` \31\ Thus, where a 
defendant has been found guilty of illegal technological bundling 
and design to protect its monopoly power, it would be appropriate to 
make the remedy ban all forms of technological bundling and design 
that foreclosed rival products but lacked any technological benefit, 
without specifically requiring proof that the foreclosed products 
posed a meaningful threat to the monopoly power. After all, when a 
defendant engages in technological manipulation that has no 
technological benefit at all, the only rational reason for its 
conduct must be to anticompetitively foreclose rivals. Given the 
absence of any procompetitive virtue, there is no reason to inflict 
on the public the additional cost and uncertainty of proving that 
the foreclosure had an anticompetitive effect. That is particularly 
true where the tying claim was dropped for the strategic reason of 
getting more quickly to the imposition of remedies, and not because 
the tying claim was ever rejected on the merits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ United States v. Loew's, 371 U.S. 38, 53 (1962); X 
AREEDA, ELHAUGE & HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW c111758, at 349 
(1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In any event, even under the most narrow possible reading of the 
prior holdings in this case, any proposed remedies must undo the 
adverse effects of (and deprive Microsoft of the fruits of) the 
prior technological and nontechnological misconduct that the 
district court and Court of Appeals found specifically foreclosed 
Netscape Navigator and Sun Java. This would at a minimum indicate 
that an appropriate remedy would include an obligation that 
Microsoft must carry Netscape Navigator and Sun's version of Java on 
its operating system, so that those products would have the 
opportunity to serve as a rival platform for applications, just as 
they could have had without Microsoft's illegal conduct. 
Unfortunately, such a remedy is probably now insufficient, since the 
foreclosure of these products has prevented a series of 
technological developments that otherwise might have occurred had 
every computer had a rival applications platform that could access 
the Internet. But, at least prospectively, such a remedy would offer 
a nice market test of the proposition that consumers might prefer to 
use these rival products as their applications platform, because the 
remedy would afford consumers the market choice of doing so or not.
    IV
    Even if one got past the proposed settlement's failure to deal 
with technological foreclosure, its efforts to deal with 
nontechnological foreclosure have problems as well. In particular, 
even the weak restrictions that the proposed settlement would impose 
have various loopholes that undermine their effectiveness. One 
troubling loophole delays Microsoft's obligations to make disclosure 
and allow removal of Microsoft middleware for up to twelve 
months.\32\ That is a lifetime in computer software development, and 
one wonders whether rivals, with that kind of time lag, will ever 
overcome it. Further, the proposed settlement permits Microsoft not 
to disclose code that would compromise the security of ``anti-
piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, 
encryption or authentication systems.`` \33\ It is quite 
possible that some of this code might be vital to the 
interoperability of rival software. Further, excluding disclosure of 
authentication codes may allow Microsoft to exclude rivals to 
Passport, its Internet authentication system, and then tie E- 
commerce to its authentication monopoly. The proposed settlement 
also leaves Microsoft free to use financial inducements to encourage 
computer makers to favor Microsoft applications as long as those 
inducements are ``commensurate'' with their sales of the 
Microsoft application or reflect ``market development 
allowances.`` \34\ Microsoft can also enter into joint 
ventures or contractual arrangements with software developers that 
bar them from dealing with rival applications if that furthers some 
bona fide contractual purpose,\35\ which probably will not be 
difficult to find. Finally, the whole proposed settlement would only 
last five years, leaving Microsoft free to engage in the full range 
of its past anticompetitive conduct starting in 2007. The mere fact 
that this threat will be looming in 2007 means that, even if the 
proposed settlement restrictions were effective, this looming threat 
would likely discourage any investments in long term software 
development, which may take years before it results in a product and 
require several years of profitability after introduction to recoup 
the investment. Indeed, since some of the proposed settlement 
obligations would not kick in for a year, the proposed settlement 
would leave rivals with only a four year window to try to profitably 
recoup investments in rival products that Microsoft could foreclose. 
This is probably insufficient even if, contrary to fact, the 
restrictions did meaningfully prevent foreclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Revised Proposed Final Judgment III.D, III.E, III.H.
    \33\ Id. III.J.
    \34\ Id. III.A, III.B.3.
    \35\ Id. III.F.2, III.G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    V
    Given the above, I am reluctantly forced to conclude that 
approving the proposed settlement as a final judgment would not be 
``in the public interest,'' as the Tunney Act requires. 15 
U.S.C.  16. It fails to ``terminat[e] alleged 
violations,'' the ``duration'' and ``relief 
sought'' are unsatisfactory, the ``anticipated effects of 
alternative remedies'' that dealt with technological 
foreclosure and dealt better with nontechnological foreclosure would 
more effectively protect the public interest, the proposed remedies 
are not ``adequa[te]'' to correct the violations found by 
courts, and ``the impact of entry of such judgment upon the 
public generally and individuals alleging specific injury, from the 
violations set forth in the complaint'' would be negative. Id.
    The proposed settlement should thus be modified to bar Microsoft 
from engaging in technological integration or design that forecloses 
rival products but lacks any technological benefit, and to provide 
more effective remedies against nontechnological methods of 
foreclosure by closing the various loopholes in the proposed 
settlement that I have described above.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    Einer Elhauge
    Professor of Law
    Harvard Law School
    t575 Massachusetts Ave.
    Cambridge, MA 02138
    TEL: 617-496-0860
    FAX: 617-496-0861
    EMAIL: [email protected]
    January 27, 2002



MTC-00027210

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs: I have read the proposed settlement. It thoroughly 
addresses oversight of prohibited behavior on the part of Microsoft. 
I feel it is a step in the right direction but it is short sighted 
as it really does not say ?What you did was wrong, now pay a price 
for having done so.?
    Nothing addresses any penalties for having operated as a 
monopoly. This to me ignores the harm done to the industry and 
customers to date. I also feel there is a serious dilemma in setting 
any penalties. One side me says ?this nation enjoys a leading role 
in global information technology, we should not hurt our overall 
standing?; the other side says ?a crime should never pay, there must 
be an appropriate punishment?. The settlement as proposed never even 
entertains an aspect of just punishment.
    Microsoft is a monopoly and enjoys the leverage of being the 
desktop operating system publisher for the world. It can spread into 
almost any other market segment if only by virtue of having enough 
money to buy into one. Their dominance today is built on their past 
containment, absorption, and removal of other competing companies 
and technologies. A lot of inspired innovation died along the way to 
getting to the current market state. There is no commercially viable 
x86 operating system in existence. Just weeks ago another company Be 
OS failed. There is almost no way to make a business of a selling a 
new operating system without selling it with a non-Intel based 
computer system. Microsoft has a commanding lead and has locked out 
competition for the desktop OS market, for both consumer and 
business users.
    The wealth of this corporation limits any meaningful financial 
penalty. Monetarily, I do not feel a dollar figure can be set that 
would really impact them because the cost would only be passed on to 
the customers. In effect, we as its customers, would be billing 
ourselves.
    Here are three possible penalties:
    1. Prohibit Microsoft and its major affiliates from merging or 
spreading into any other diversifying business ventures for the next 
three to five years. In effect freeze Microsoft's current expansion 
for a fixed period of time giving competitors some opportunity to 
survive and grow.
    2. Set up a venture capital startup fund using $1 billion paid 
by Microsoft to support

[[Page 27959]]

new alternative (competing) U.S. based operating system and software 
developers. Prohibit Microsoft from ever acquiring or partnering 
with these companies.
    3. Encourage sectors of the U.S. government to procure fewer 
Microsoft products by offering budgetary inducements through GSA for 
using alternative sourced products for a period of three to five 
years. This opportunity would encourage developers to bring new 
products to market possibly spurring competition and better pricing. 
Consumers would benefit in having more choices.
    Sincerely,
    Alvin Scott



MTC-00027211

From: David Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:24pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I hope you will consider a remedy with a little more teeth than 
the one that has been proposed. I still use Netscape because I 
prefer it, but even though one can download it free of charge, it is 
still easier for most folks to use IE because it comes with their 
OS. Netscape's improved the new versions to the point that reviewers 
are praising it over IE, but it is still hard to use it because it 
is not universally supported. Either through fear of Microsoft or 
because of cost effectiveness, it is not always supported by website 
developers or even internet providers. It is rather sad when one's 
own ISP will not support one's use of Netscape because not enough 
customers use it to justify training their tech support, when you 
know that people aren't using Netscape because it was muscled aside. 
I have even found web sites that won't display in Netscape. I don't 
know if that is because the site has an agreement with Microsoft or 
because they choose not to design the site for both browsers because 
they don't think there will be enough traffic from Netscape 
customers to be worth the cost. Please consider a remedy that will 
change things enough to give a practical choice to those of us who 
would like one. Requiring Microsoft to sell a version of Windows 
without IE would be a good start.



MTC-00027212

From: sysadmin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that any settlement the DOJ makes with Microsoft will 
cause more harm than good. Microsoft should be forced to take full 
responsibility for the monopolistic blackhole they have created.
    Since Microsoft has embarked on a disinformation campaign, many 
people feel that Microsoft is the only software company. This is not 
true. There are many alternatives that could fill the void if 
Microsoft were to fail. More specifically, there is Sun 
Microsystems, Apple, IBM, and and many Linux companies.
    Bill Gates will argue that his company is helping create 
standards of quality. This statement follows hundreds of security 
holes, thousands of bugs, and the technical documents that label 
Widows as the most unstable OS.
    Microsoft sucks up everything in its wake. Currently, Microsoft 
has been attacking the Open Source movement. According to Microsoft, 
the Opensource movement (more specifically the GPL) is a cancer. 
They call it a cancer because they can not control it. Normally, 
Microsoft would purchase any competing idea and store it away. They 
store every bit of creativity the software industry has. If anything 
it is Microsoft, that is the cancer. It should be removed.
    Your's truely,
    Thedore Knab
    Systems Engineer [UNIX]
    Washington College
    300 Washington College
    Chestertown, MD 21620
    Office: 410-810-7419
    Fax: 410-778-7830
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00027213

From: Jimmy Tucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jimmy W. Tucker
998 Damrosch Street
Largo, Florida 33771
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I support the settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. It is 
time to put this lawsuit behind us and move on to better things like 
developing better products. Microsoft and its competitors should all 
be improving and innovating all the time, not focusing on 
litigation. The people in the marketplace will choose the best 
products for their needs. So far the people have chosen Microsoft. 
The fact that Microsoft has been dominant does not mean it has been 
harmful. Along with Intel on the hardware side, Microsoft has 
dictated the standard that people have chosen to follow and build 
upon. I do think the corporate world needs some oversight. The 
settlement will open up Microsoft to its PC industry even further 
than it is now. This is in stark contrast to the successful, but not 
dominant strategy of Apple Computer, which has been to maintain 
close, sole, proprietary control over all major facets of its 
business, from design to manufacturing, and from hardware to 
software. Microsoft has agreed, for example, to disclose the 
copyrighted software of the internal interfaces to Windows. I am 
pro-competitive. The settlement will be good for American consumers 
and industry, in my opinion.
    I thank you, Mr. Ashcroft, for your support of the Microsoft 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jimmy W. Tucker



MTC-00027214

From: Paul C Halstead
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Justice Department
    In accordance with the Tunney Act I wish to comment as follows. 
``Consumer interests have been well served and the time to end 
this costly and damaging litigation has come. Dragging out this 
legal battle further will only benefit a few wealthy competitors, 
lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one new product that 
helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.''
    Very truly yours
    Paul C Halstead



MTC-00027215

From: Glen Kleinknecht
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I am a personal computer user as well as running an inner-city 
non profit which uses 10 computers. I have found that Microsoft a 
generous company for us. However, I do not believe it to be in the 
benefit of users like me and my inner-city work to benefit from an 
environment of one company controlling the computer operating system 
market. Nor do I believe that it is beneficial to M.S. M.S. will 
benefit from a truely competitive market Therefore, I want to 
express my concern about the PFJ as a good solution. Please consider 
this user as one who would not want this ``judgement'' 
enacted.
    Thank you for your consideration. I am sure you will render the 
fair conclusion on PFJ.
    Glen Kleinknecht
    Director, Here's Life Inner City
    (NYC)
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027216

From: wbusch
To: Microsoft ATR,Mary Fentress
Date: 1/27/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft needs to be broken up to allow fair competition to 
other developers. Over the years they have stolen technology from 
many companies. Most recently mouse technology that netted them 
hundreds of millions of dollars. Even with the legal battles going 
on they show NO intention in changing business as usual practices. 
They had to pay Stac technologies $ 120 million in the past..they 
didn't care they made much more. They said it wasn't possible to 
separate the browser from Windows. It was another lie. A product 
called 98 Lite did just that. Now they say it is possible but they 
continue to work at making it impossible in future versions of th 
OSes they build. They all but killed off Dr DOS which was superior 
at the time. They destroy, buy off or steal technologies as needed 
to control the marketplace. They can not be trusted to police 
themselves and should be broken up into several separate entities 
that would not be able to prevent development of alternative 
operating systems,or new technologies by money and influence. Just 
as they recently tried to ``settle'' with the government 
by putting even more of their software into schools to further 
expand Microsoft's presense. They continue to prey upon the public 
as well developers. I am a user of Microsoft products and I am 
currently enrolled in Microsoft classes in college which I pay for 
myself without financial aid. Despite this I know that if we

[[Page 27960]]

do not stop the marketing of new OS every two years for the sake of 
profit we will soon destroy all competition at an enormous expense 
to all users.
    Thank you for this opportunity to speak out.



MTC-00027217

From: Joe Barr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    My name is Joe Barr. I am a United States citizen residing at 
1715 High Road, Kyle, TX, 78640. I have been using personal 
computers since before the introduction of the IBM PC and the luck 
of the draw which gave Microsoft its monopoly on the PC operating 
system market on day one. I have worked in the computing industry 
since 1974, either as a programmer, manager, consultant or 
journalist.
    I have seen Microsoft's dishonest, duplicitous, and illegal 
business tactics destroy a healthy market and replace it with one 
devoid of real innovation and competition. I have seen software 
developers lose their life's savings as a result of the malignancy 
of the Microsoft monopoly. I have been witness to the perjury of 
Bill Gates in the STAC case, the rigged demos in federal courts, and 
the false statements made under oath of the top Microsoft 
executives. And I am not alone. Millions of others have seen the 
same thing.
    I am submitting these comments in hopes that they will reach the 
judge who will rule on the proposed ``settlement'' between 
Microsoft and the DOJ in the long-running antitrust case. I know 
that many others will be writing to point out their views on the 
legalities of the settlement. I am not qualified to do that. I am 
certain that the judge needs no help from me in determining that on 
her own. I merely wish to state the obvious: the settlement is all 
about politics, not justice.
    There are terrible shortcomings in the proposed settlement. The 
most notable among them are:
    1. The restraints it asserts are weak and inconsequential.
    2. No penalties are prescribed for failure to abide by them.
    3. The loopholes are larger and more numerous than the 
restraints.
    4. If this settlement is accepted by the court, it will not 
hamper Microsoft's ability to llegally extend its monopolies one 
iota. In fact, the settlement will strengthen its ability to do 
exactly that.
    Under the leadership of the Bush administration, the DOJ did not 
even bother to assign a competent negotiator to the task of reaching 
a settlement. Ashcroft personally took the United States biggest 
threat to Microsoft off the table, and Charles White evidently could 
do nothing but repeat ``Yowsa, Mister Gates, Yowsa'' at 
every stage. No matter that the world knows Microsoft not to be 
trustworthy, White and Ashcroft leave important matters completely 
up to Microsoft's judgement in the settlement. Their greatest 
accomplishment for the United States in the document seems to have 
been to win the right for the DOJ to jointly (with Microsoft) decide 
who would oversee the it.
    Ashcroft and White have humiliated and shamed the entire 
Department of Justice in their rush to deliver to Bill Gates and 
Microsoft the ``Get Out Of Jail Free'' card promised by 
President Bush. Their work is nothing short of an indictment of the 
American legal process: justice for sale to the highest bidder. One 
administration, one Enron, one Microsoft. Justice for all three.
    No mere tinkering with the current settlement would be 
sufficient to correct the wrongs resulting from Microsoft's past 
behavior or even to insure they do not continue. A just settlement 
must contain swift, sure, and painful punishment as a consequence 
for failure to abide by its terms. Microsoft has proven itself 
countless times not to trustworthy. They must be made to behave, or 
else they won't. It is as simple as that.
    Here's hoping that you will throw this outrageous political 
settlement onto the scrapheap where it belongs. Unfortunately, you 
face opposition to an equitable settlement not only from Microsoft, 
but from their purchased political appointees as well.
    /Signed/
    Joe Barr
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027218

From: Cebert Shrum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is our opinion that the Microsoft offer should be accepted. 
We think that it is a shame what is being done to this company 
because of their success. It is another example of meddling like the 
case of AT&T. We had the best telephone company in the world and 
now we have a mish-mash and we get less service and it costs more 
just because of one judge. The public is the ones who suffer in 
cases like this. In this case the public has already suffered 
because the stock is less valuable and if the company is punished 
more, their products will suffer and cost more and cause more jobs 
to go overseas and increase unemployment.
    We think it is time to let Microsoft alone.
    Mr. and Mrs. Cebert W. Shrum
    3733 Southern Manor Drive
    St. Louis, Missouri 63125-4478
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027219

From: Richard Dunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement does not go far enough in 
ensuring that Microsoft will cease it's predatory actions. The 
company has repeatedly announced their plans to expand and dominate 
other markets like they have the PC market.
    Richard Dunn
    5588 Tosca ct.
    Placerville, Ca 95667
    (530)677-8400



MTC-00027220

From: John H. Lindsay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
rway Hill Crescent,
Kingston, Ontario, K7M 2B4,
Canada,
 2002 01 27.
Ms. Renata Hesse,
Trial Attorney,
Antitrust Division,
United States Department of Justice,
601 D Street, North West, Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20530 U. S. A.
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement: I wish to comment on the 
proposed Microsoft Settlement. You will note form the above address 
that I am a Canadian, and thus not directly concerned with the 
Proposed Microsoft Settlement. However, I submit that considering 
where I am writing from, what my background is and what sort of 
things I do, I am uniquely placed to offer comment which may be 
informative and useful to you in this matter.
    I say that Microsoft's restrictive sales and software 
development methods and practices have had a more devastating an 
effect in Canada on software development than in the States. That, 
however is a matter for the Canadian Departments of Justice and of 
Trade and Commerce and our courts, and is not my point here.
    It would be interesting to me for you to consider at some time 
in the future whether Microsoft's actions taken in the U.S. both 
directly and through Microsoft Canada, and having effect in Canada 
to restrict competition among software manufacturers and 
distributors, including U.S. manufacturers and distributors 
marketing in Canada, is subject to your laws. Again, this is not my 
point here.
    My point is that Microsoft's restrictive practises have spilled 
over the border and had such a huge effect and have been so 
penetrating in Canada, affecting even little one-person near- 
hobbyist operations like mine. Those practises must then have 
affected every corner and every small computer user, software 
creator and distributer in the U.S. Further, I have read the 
document COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT, Civil Action No. 
98-1233 (CKK), and in it, I find in it very little that I 
could call sufficiently punitive, corrective, recompensatory, 
effectively preventative, of deterrent to or controlling of 
Microsoft restrictive practises, especially as it relates to little 
people like me but in the U.S., little people who don't have the 
money to hire a lawyer, and who look to you for protection from 
predatory giants.
    I am a retired professor of Computing Science; I taught 15.5 
years at Queen's University here in Kingston, and 17.5 years at 
Royal Military College (compare: West Point, U.S. Naval Academy, 
U.S. Air Force Academy all rolled into one, made a degree-granting 
university, and reduced to Canadian size) also here in Kingston. My 
field of study is computer programming languages, particularly the 
macro languages, macro language programming systems, and compilers. 
I'm still studying in my ``retirement'' and working on a 
computing project that in all my years at the two universities, I 
never had the time or resources to do. In this project, I'm a one-
person

[[Page 27961]]

organization, a unique one-person programming organization among 
many such unique one-person organizations everywhere in the world. 
There are many such one-person organizations in the United States, 
hobbyists, and many of the creators of shareware, freeware and open-
source software for instance. You may wish to browse the Hobbes 
archive of OS/2 software from around the world at http://
hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/OS2 at New Mexico State University; the majority 
of it is contributed by OS/2 programmers in the United States, 
almost all little people like me.
    My project is the Rosanna programming language and programming 
system, a system to permit the creation and use of programming 
languages peculiar to a problem or class of problems at hand. I plan 
to release it not for profit, but under a type of licence which 
expects the user to do something agreeable to him in thanks to the 
good Lord or for his fellow man--I call it Samaritan 
ware--in return for the right to use Rosanna. This puts my work 
in much the same classes as freeware or shareware, or open-source 
software (mine will be open-source too, but with a difference).
    In my work, I use the OS/2 operating system for a number of 
reasons: (1) the design of the system which helps in the 
organization and creation of software, (2) the availability of ALL 
the API documentation in open form, (3) the ready availability of 
high quality software, especially compilers for a huge number of 
programming languages and well-conceived and well-written 
programmers'' utilities, (4) its invulnerability to almost all 
the computer viri and worms, especially the ones introduced in the 
last year or so, and (5) the stability of the system--I think I 
have to reboot about once every five or six weeks or more, except 
when I have to reboot to install a new piece of software. You have 
heard the sorry tale of the failure of OS/2 in the market place 
caused by Microsoft's actions. We OS/2 programmers are loosing our 
favourite operating system bit by bit as a result.
    Our loss, the loss of the little one and two-man programming 
organizations, including those in the United States, is in very 
large part, intangible. The rewards of the freeware programmer are 
just those of knowing that he has done a good job (the quality of 
work produced by OS/2 programmers seems to be a good level higher 
than the quality of much on the market or available on the InterNet) 
and the knowledge that there are people who will use his work. If 
OS/2 falls into disuse, we will have few to use our work, and that 
will be what Microsoft has done. The shareware programmer looks for 
both those rewards and the fees paid by the users. They will be out-
of-pocket due to Microsoft's restrictive practises too.
    I see no cause for relief in the present proposed Microsoft 
Settlement for the little non-Microsoft programmer in the U.S. but 
like me. We need our user base back, a user base that has been taken 
from us by Microsoft's improper actions. There is nothing in the 
proposed settlement that gives us that user base back, and there is 
no effective way to compensate us all for that loss.
    Please send the proposed settlement back to the drawing board 
for the sake of my U.S. counterparts. In particular, I suggest that 
every clause be examined for things which can be made ineffective by 
Microsoft's evasive actions, and please, please, don't include a 
clause like the gift of Microsoft software to schools and colleges. 
That's a subtle form of Microsoft advertising; students learning to 
use a piece of software at a school, college or university tend to 
continue to use it afterwards in their work. If anything, I suggest 
that you make Microsoft buy software from other non-related 
suppliers equal in value to what they offered to give, including but 
not limited to OS/2 from I.B.M., Linux, B.S.D. Unix, Corel software 
including WordPerfect, and so on, and give that to schools, colleges 
and universities.
    Yours very truly,
    John H. Lindsay.
    John H. Lindsay 48 Fairway Hill Crescent,
    Kingston, Ontario,
    Canada, K7M 2B4.
    Phone: (613) 546-6988 Fax: (613) 542-6987
    [email protected]



MTC-00027221

From: jsterner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: ``Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network'' 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 6:22 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. The public comment period for this issue ends on 
January 28th. Please send in your letter as soon as is convenient.
    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
CC: Jack Sterner
328 Thomas Barbour Drive
Melbourne, FL 32935
January 27,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I never thought that Microsoft should have been brought to 
trial. If Microsoft had been doing something wrong, America would 
have known about it long before, and the consumer would not have 
stood by and shelled out cash for products that were shoddy or 
overpriced. I am not an expert on antitrust law, and I do not know 
everything that has gone on in the case, but I am a consumer of 
Microsoft products, and I am affected by the recession America is 
currently in, and I believe both the economy and computer industry 
have suffered because of this case.
    The proposed settlement is perfectly reasonable; unfortunately, 
Microsoft's opponents do not agree. They are currently seeking to 
undermine the settlement and continue to litigate against Microsoft. 
I do not believe this is wise or needful. Microsoft has agreed to a 
variety of terms aimed specifically at decreasing their dominance in 
the market. Microsoft's competitors will be given a great deal of 
advantages. For example, Microsoft will reformat the Windows 
operating system so that future versions of the software will 
support non-Microsoft programs. Competitors will be allowed to use 
Windows to introduce their own software to consumers. Computer 
makers will also be given the right to reconfigure Windows by 
removing Microsoft applications and replacing them with competitive 
alternatives.
    The economy needs to get back on its feet, and this is the 
perfect opportunity to give it the chance to do so. The settlement 
that was reached last November needs no modification. I urge you to 
support it and to move on.
    Sincerely,
    John Terner



MTC-00027222

From: Alex Wallace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Dept. Of Justice:
    I believe that Microsoft's proposed ``settlement'' is 
the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. You cannot allow 
Microsoft to sneak out of their dillimma by further pushing their 
monopoly- which was what they were in trouble with in the first 
place. Perhaps their punishment could be for them to pay fines to 
all the companies they have pushed down with their monopoly? Apple 
and Netscape come to mind...
    Sincerely,
    Alex Wallace



MTC-00027223

From: Philip Seal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a citizen of this wonderful country and a taxpayer, I wish to 
object most strongly to

[[Page 27962]]

any changes that might be proposed or made to the settlement that 
was legally reached after very much discussion and deliberation, by 
the court in this matter concerning this great company. Please don't 
allow this matter to be dragged on any further. There is no need to 
waste our precious resources on useless wrangling just to satisfy 
the greed of a few individuals, who are only looking for ways to 
line their pockets at the expense of a successful Company, and of 
the entire population of this great nation of ours. Let's get on 
with more important items that might benefit and improve our 
economy. ``Enough is Enough.''
    Philip Seal
    Sunrise FL



MTC-00027224

From: Mark (038) Pam Collier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We would like to see the antitrust case against Microsoft 
settled. We think it is ridiculous that this case was filed at all, 
and we are pleased that efforts have been made to resolve the 
lawsuit. The terms of the settlement agreement are reasonable. 
Microsoft has made many concessions. Once the settlement agreement 
is approved, there should no longer be any concern about 
anticompetitive behavior on Microsoft's part. Microsoft has agreed 
not to take retaliatory action against those who develop or promote 
software that competes with Windows. Additionally, Microsoft has 
agreed not to enter into contracts with third parties that would 
require the third party to exclusively sell Microsoft's products. 
Nothing more should be required of Microsoft.
    We urge the court to approve the settlement agreement in its 
present form. Thank you for reviewing these comments.
    Respectfully,
    Mark & Pam Collier



MTC-00027225

From: MERLE G WEAVER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    stop the delaying, move on to let Microsoft do its job.
    merle weaver



MTC-00027226

From: Mike Letcher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My opinion on the above referenced settlement is that there 
should have never been a suit or judgement against Microsoft in the 
first place, therefore all charges and penalties should be dropped. 
Microsoft should be allowed to do business as they choose (just as 
anyone in a free country should) so long as they do not physically 
initiate force or threaten physical harm. They got their economic 
power through free trade and the fact that, besides myself, many, 
many persons freely chose their software over other available 
products. This suit is a travesty to freedom.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Letcher
    United States Citizen,
    State of Missouri



MTC-00027227

From: John Grauch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:26pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge:
    As a soon-to-be graduating college student, I would just like to 
voice my concern about the possible negative ramifications, should 
the Microsoft be allowed to continue in its present monopolistic 
trend. You have the fate of the free world in your hands, please 
seriously consider how truly monopolistic Microsoft is. The proposed 
final judgement does not adequately remedy the situation.
    Thank you for your time,
    John Grauch
    USC college student



MTC-00027228

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs,
    Having watched the computer industry for about 20 years now, I 
have witnessed the Microsoft corporation as it has grown from the 
supplier of software for ``hobby'' computers to its 
present day dominance in the software industry. And I have watched 
as it has systematically destroyed any company that has attempted to 
do business selling software, starting with Digital Research in the 
1980's. As near as I can tell, Microsoft has never been the 
innovator it claims to be, but rather exists by adopting the ideas 
of others and marketing them as its own. Therefore, it is with great 
disappointment that I learn that the punishment for abusing its 
monopoly power will in essence be, that it must promise to be nice 
and not do it any more. Note that Microsoft has never publicly 
acknowledged its own wrongdoing! A more realistic judgement, in my 
opinion, would be to completely revoke the IPRs that have allowed it 
to become the monster it is. Not forever, not for every company. 
Just for Microsoft and just for a period of say, 5 years as in the 
current judgement. During that period, Microsoft could no longer 
make wild claims of ``piracy'' nor force users to 
``sign'' a ridiculous ``contract'' merely by 
clicking their mouse. If someone wished to copy or reverse-engineer 
Microsoft products during that period, he or she could do so with 
impunity. It would serve as a reminder to Microsoft that it 
--can-- be regulated, and that the foundation of its 
business model is in fact government regulation.
    James Robertson



MTC-00027229

From: Michael B. Parker
To: 
``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov','verify(a)kegel.com''
Date: 1/27/02 9:43pm
Subject: RE: Verifying you as cosigner of Open Letter to DOJ
Name: Michael Parker
City: Los Angeles
State: CA
Title: Software Architect
Organization: n/a
    I am signing www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html because I believe 
Dan Kegel accurately points out that the proposed final judgment 
with Microsoft considerably falls short of ending anti-competition 
practices, such as (very offensively), preventing Publicly Available 
Software from being redistributed with MS Windows (Media Encoder 7.1 
SDK) (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#isv.oss). While 
it might be easier to debug if it was just one make of software, 
that is not even beginning to be sufficient technical reason to 
insist on doing so universally, and the fact that a stipulation such 
as this would exist in the settlement would suggest to me that the 
settlement is still ill-spirited and Microsoft would may well still 
put in anti-competitive practices anywhere they could.
    CC: Paul Belvoir
    Michael Scott Klein



MTC-00027230

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge--
    I'm a college student and thus have been a big supporter of 
Microsoft products (mainly Microsoft Word). However, I do not 
believe it is right they were able to be granted a deal giving them 
full leverage over the competition. We live in America under a 
Democracy. Thus, a company based in the states should not rule as a 
dictatorship. If our country is not run in this manner, what makes a 
company believe they can do so?
    Sincerely,
    Robyn Freeman
    814 W. 28th St.,
    Los Angeles, CA 90007
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,dkleinkn@yahoo...



MTC-00027231

From: Daniel Speers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Very simply put, this Settlement is a bad idea. The reasons are 
many and the following URL is merely a good start.
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Dan Speers
    15 Maxine Drive
    Morristown, NJ 07960
    973-898-0906



MTC-00027232

From: Rayson Ho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Renata,

[[Page 27963]]

    I am from Ontario, Canada. I just graduated from the computer 
engineering program at the University of Toronto. I recently saw the 
Open letter from Dan Kegel's web site about the Microsoft 
settlement. As a member of this industry, I think I need to say 
something. I strongly agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html) I also agree with the conclusion reached by 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,
    Rayson Ho,
    Toronto, Canada;
    Recent Grad,
    U of Toronto.



MTC-00027233

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to reject the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case and to require that Microsoft adhere to a market 
based approach that is self-sustaining, rather than to regulatory 
remedies that require constant policing. I do not believe that 
Microsoft, a company that has repeatedly been found to violate 
antitrust laws, should be broken up. Rather, its 70,000 applications 
should be able to run on all competing operating systems. This 
solution will allow consumers to enjoy the advantages of current and 
future competing products without denying them the use of any 
Microsoft products. Such an approach is not designed to 
``punish'' Microsoft, but to promote a level playing field 
in which consumers can freely shop for the mix of products that best 
meets their needs at competitive prices.
    Jerald A. Breitman
    15 Innisfree Drive
    Durham, NC 27707-5069



MTC-00027234

From: Renhao Zhang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Official,
    I'm writing this letter to voice my opinion regarding the 
Microsoft Anti-trust case as allowed by provisions of the Tunney 
Act.
    As a technology consumer and a computer user, it is virtually 
impossible to conduct my affairs without some form of association to 
the products of Microsoft, the defendant of the anti-trust trial. As 
such, the decision and outcome of this trial is of great 
significance to me.
    I agree with the conclusions of the courts Finding of Facts as 
published here: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm 
but I do not support the proposed final judgment as published here: 
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm
    I object for the following reasons:
    (1) Although the spirit of the remedial actions are a step in 
the right direction, they are too loose and do not go far enough. 
Too much of the language and the details of how relevant items are 
defined are too vague. As it stands, the door is wide open for the 
defendant to construct and exploit loopholes that defeat the 
original purpose of the judgment rendered. Microsoft has a corporate 
history of placing self-interest above the public good and can not 
be trusted to abide by a weak judgment by the Department of Justice.
    (2) The decision to remove the order to break up the company 
along product lines is a critical mistake that will hurt the 
ultimate goals of this trial. Microsoft has already been found 
guilty of illegal monopolistic business practices. Keeping the 
monopoly intact does nothing to punish the guilty. If allowed to 
stay intact, Microsoft will continue it's history of bullying and 
pressuring competitors with it's market dominance along multiple 
fronts of the consumer electronics and computing industry. As of 
today, Microsoft has well established holds in the general desktop 
computing, PDA, and game console markets all under the banner of the 
Windows operating system. Microsoft can not be allowed to use the 
Windows to destroy the diversity of a healthy market.
    (3) Though the guilty verdict establishes Microsoft as a 
repeated transgressor of fair market practices, no action has been 
taken to punish the company for past deeds. Over the years, 
Microsoft has littered the corporate landscape with the remains of 
corporate entities whose products and market objectives came into 
conflict with Microsoft. Many surviving companies and computer 
product producers have testified to the various forms of attack 
Microsoft has engaged in to stifle competition. It isn't fair to 
those market participants who have suffered on account of Microsoft 
for the company to get off so lightly. In addition to the remedial 
measures, Microsoft needs to be aggressively punished for it's 
previous business practices as an example to future potential 
corporate law breakers.
    These comments I respectfully submit to the government in the 
hope that it will aid the cause of justice.
    sincerely,
    Renhao Zhang



MTC-00027236

From: Thomas Parkhill
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/27/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlepeople:
    There is, in my opinion, little justice in the recent decision 
regarding Microsoft and its business practices. I disagree with this 
settlement most strenously!
    Thom Parkhill
    Department of
    Religious Studies
    St. Thomas Unversity
    Fredericton, N.B.
    Canada E3B 5G3
    [email protected]



MTC-00027237

From: Dick Humphrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my understanding that Monday, January 28, is the deadline 
for individuals to submit their opinions to the Department of 
Justice on the antitrust settlement between Microsoft, the DoJ and 
nine states. I respectfully ask that you consider the value of 
competitive practices, not legal means, to attempt to capture 
customer market share. Microsoft spent over $2.0 Billion in legal 
fees last year. They have agreed to make some concessions to abide 
by your original concerns and now we find lobbyists and competitors 
are forging ahead with competitive issues to keep Microsoft from 
carrying out their daily operations that have certainly meant a 
great deal to the day to day operation of each American's life to 
make it more productive and efficient. While the terms of the 
settlement are tough, it is my understanding that Microsoft believes 
they are reasonable and fair to all parties, and meet--or go 
beyond--the ruling by the Court of Appeals, and represent the 
best opportunity for Microsoft and the industry to move forward.
    I respectfully ask that you not reject the settlement and get 
this legal mess behind us. Thank you for your consideration.
    Dick Humphrey
    Littleton, CO
    [email protected]
    303-770-8881



MTC-00027238

From: Lawrence W Mahar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft case
From: Lawrence W Mahar
945 Murray Road,
Middle Grove, NY 12850,
home & FAX 518-587-6781,
e-mail: [email protected].

    I agree with The Senior Coalition in recommending an acceptance 
of the Miscosoft offer.
URGENT ACTION ALERT
    Your immediate response is needed!
    Three years ago, the U.S. Department of Justice charged 
Microsoft with having engaged in anti-competitive behavior based on 
allegations by its top competitors. Many have argued that Microsoft 
was singled out by its jealous competitors and sympathetic 
government bureaucrats because of its success and a desire to see it 
punished.
    The Justice Department is in the final stages of deliberating on 
the proposed Microsoft settlement to decide whether to accept the 
settlement or to litigate it further. The Seniors Coalition strongly 
believes that the proposed settlement offers a reasonable compromise 
that will enhance the ability of seniors and all Americans to access 
the internet and use innovative software products to make their 
computer experience easier and more enjoyable.
    Unfortunately, a few of Microsoft's competitors have continued 
their aggressive lobbying campaign to undermine the settlement 
negotiated with the federal government and nine states. The 
settlement

[[Page 27964]]

itself is tough on Microsoft, but is a fair outcome for all 
parties--particularly senior consumers. Most important, this 
settlement will have a very positive impact on the American economy 
and will help pull us from the recession we have experienced over 
the past year.
    You can offer your opinion to the Justice Department to counter 
the self-serving and punitive lobbying effort of Microsoft's 
competitors. Current law (known as the Tunney Act) allows public 
comment on the proposed settlement up until January 28th. The U.S. 
District Court will then decide whether the settlement is in the 
``public interest.'' Please send your strong message to 
the Justice Department that consumer interests have been well 
served, and the time to end this costly and damaging litigation has 
come.
    Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few 
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one 
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
YOUR VOICE IS VERY IMPORTANT AND TIME IS VERY SHORT.
    Only comments received by January 28th will be included in the 
public record and submitted to the Court for its consideration. 
Consumers need to win this battle, so please send your comments 
immediately to the Justice Department--either by email or by 
fax--and do it before January 28th.
    Don't let these special interests defeat the public interest.
    Email: [email protected].
    In the Subject line of the e-mail,type ``Microsoft 
Settlement.''
    Fax: 1-202-307-1454
    or 1-202-616-9937
    To find out more about the settlement and the Tunney Act comment 
period, go to the Department of Justice Website at: http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm Raising your voice now on this 
issue really will have an impact.
    Thank you for your time.
    Mary M. Martin
    Chairman and Executive Director
    The Seniors Coalition



MTC-00027239

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:48pm
Subject: Public Comments
    I am writing this email to state that I am opposed to the terms 
of the Microsoft Settlement as they are currently stated. One of the 
biggest objections that I have is the proposal that Microsoft be 
allowed to give away software to public schools as part of the terms 
of the settlement. This does not penalize them for past behavior. In 
fact it encourages them to continue this because this settlement 
then greatly expands their market share and ties more school systems 
into this operating system.
    Thank you for listening to my comments.
    Elliot Abramowitz
    Glendale, Az



MTC-00027240

From: John Parmater
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I know the Bush administration wants to be friendly to business 
by being friendly to Microsoft. However, as was establish during the 
trial, Microsoft has been quite hostile to business and hostile to 
the welfare of the United States of America. Please do whatever you 
can to rein in this behemoth.
    Thank you.
    John Parmater



MTC-00027241

From: Jerome B. Bonat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I admire the products that Microsoft has brought to the 
marketplace --I do not think they should be punished for being 
effective in the capitalistic system.
    Jerome B Bonat
    Boca Raton Fl
    561 482 6779



MTC-00027242

From: Akkana
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my voice to those protesting the settlement 
in the Microsoft case proposed by the Department of Justice. The 
proposed settlement is too weak, and does nothing to punish 
Microsoft for its past illegal behavior or to prevent it from 
continuing the same patterns of behavior in the future. As a 
temporary measure, it would be a welcome help which might help get 
the industry moving again while stricter measures are being 
considered; but by itself it will not change anything in the long 
run.
    There's no question about Microsoft's guilt: both the district 
court and the appeals court found Microsoft guilty of violating 
sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman antitrust act. So how can we allow a 
settlement which levies no penalty whatsoever against the 
lawbreaker--which allows Microsoft to keep the billions of 
dollars of profits which have come out of the pockets of consumers 
and of the many smaller companies which it has trampled in the 
course of maintaining its illegal monopoly? The proposed settlement 
would send a clear message that companies are free to break the law 
with impunity.
    We've already seen how effective a weak settlement will be on 
modifying Microsoft's behavior. Did the agreement of July, 1994 
(http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre--96/July94/94387.txt.html) 
help in ending the company's monopolistic and bullying practices? 
Evidently not, or they wouldn't have been found guilty in the 
present case. Nor has the current proposed settlement (which 
Microsoft claims to support) prevented them from imposing licensing 
and registration agreements in their most recent software products 
which maintain their software monopoly and keep users from trying 
software from other sources. Another weak settlement is an engraved 
invitation for more monopolistic behavior and many more court cases 
in the years to come.
    III: Prohibited Conduct More important, though, is what the 
settlement says about Microsoft's future behavior. The settlement 
will place no significant restrictions on Microsoft's 
anticompetitive behavior, and allows the company to continue to use 
its monopoly to lock out other software products.
    The spirit of the settlement is fine. Microsoft's most egregious 
violations, which have had the worst effect on competition, have 
been its restrictions on licensees, OEMs and other customers 
restricting their ability to run other operating systems or software 
from sources other than Microsoft, and the bulk of the settlement 
attempts to address such issues. However, it is so specific and its 
scope so limited that the current settlement by itself will not 
cover the modern applications and the sorts of customers which 
provide the bulk of Microsoft's income.
    Microsoft has already shown itself willing and able to work 
around loopholes in the proposed settlement. Consider its current 
enterprise licensing scheme, announced after the publication of the 
proposed remedy, which offers discounts to companies which sign an 
agreement not to use non-Microsoft products. Does this behavior 
become acceptable simply because most businesses do not fall under 
the heading of ``IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM''?
    The loopholes in III J don't specify who is to make the 
determination as to what constitutes encryption, anti-piracy, 
licensing, digital rights management, etc. What is to prevent 
Microsoft from claiming that all of its APIs are critical to one or 
more of these technologies? Who has the right to overrule them?
    IV: Compliance and Enforcement Procedures: Who is to enforce 
these rules and ensure that Microsoft doesn't continue to flout the 
law as it has in the past? IV B 3: Microsoft itself has half the 
responsibility (one of the first two members plus half a vote as to 
the third member) for selecting members of the oversight committee? 
Isn't it unusual for convicted criminals to be allowed to select the 
guards who will oversee them? These committee members, moreover, 
will be funded by Microsoft and will work at Microsoft's 
headquarters? It's hard to imagine that any technical committee will 
end up being a tough enforcer of the law under such conditions. And 
why is the technical committee prohibited from disclosing the 
details of any complaints or proceedings, by IV D 4(e)? Let's face 
it: Microsoft isn't going to change its behavior willingly, and a 
small number of people chosen by Microsoft, financially beholden to 
the company and working side by side with company employees, in 
secret and out of public view, is not going to change anything.
    Conclusion: An immediate measure is needed. Since the 
settlement, Microsoft has already shipped new software which is even 
more flagrantly anticompetitive than their previous products, and 
has announced new licensing policies which flout the spirit of all 
of the proposed settlements. Further deliberation may be needed 
regarding a strong remedy which will break Microsoft's stranglehold 
on the market and restore competition to the software industry. If 
that is the case, please consider imposing

[[Page 27965]]

temporary sanctions (perhaps akin to the proposed settlement) to 
send a message that Microsoft must cease its illegal activities 
immediately.
    For the long term, though, I urge you to reject the proposed 
settlement as too weak and too riddled with loopholes to do any 
long-term good. Please consider imposing a much stronger settlement 
that (1) imposes punishment for Microsoft's intentional and flagrant 
violation of the law, and (2) imposes real and enforceable 
guidelines (or structural remedies) which will offer real relief to 
the millions of consumers and the hundreds of companies who are 
suffering from Microsoft's current stranglehold on the software 
market.
    Thank you very much for your attention.
    Akkana Peck
    Software Engineer
    549 Arleta Ave
    San Jose, CA 95128
    (408) 297-5257
    [email protected]



MTC-00027243

From: Alexander Bogdashevsky
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/27/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft Settlement is a really bad 
idea. But you know what, I am not surprized at all... Alexander 
Bogdashevsky



MTC-00027244

From: Peter Traneus Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:53pm
Subject: suggestion
    I suggest that Microsoft be required to make the .doc, .xls, 
Media player, and other binary file formats public, so competitors 
can write format-compatible programs. This eliminates the problem of 
people being forced to use Microsoft products because someone sent 
them a file in a Microsoft format.
    Peter Traneus Anderson
    42 River Street
    Andover, MA 01810-5908
    [email protected]



MTC-00027245

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    Please settle the microsoft case.We must end all litigation. 
Let's focus on reviving the economy. Microsoft has agreed to do many 
things to help everyone.Why not stop all of this now, and settle 
their case?
    We must settle, and settle now.
    Sincerely,
    Bill and Dorothy Herndon



MTC-00027246

From: Jake Robb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not feel the need to reiterate the complaints against 
Microsoft which I am sure you have read or heard thousands of times 
by now. I want to voice my opinion against Microsoft's proposed 
settlement. The following web page references several arguments 
against the settlement. I have read several and agree with an 
alarming majority of the agruments. I encourage you to read them; 
they provide excellent coverage of the many opinions against the 
settlement.
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
    I urge you not to approve the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jake Robb
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Software Engineer



MTC-00027247

From: Steve Wheeler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the Microsoft settlement as it currently stands. 
Microsoft has been convicted of using monopoly power in unlawful 
fashion. The currently-proposed settlement has fewer teeth than the 
consent decrees that Microsoft has already ignored. Besides there 
being no significant penalties applied, the decree allows Microsoft 
to use its desktop monopoly to leverage access to and control of 
further markets. There is no recourse to this, because all Microsoft 
has to do to remain compliant with the settlement is to state that 
whatever feature they use to provide such access and control is 
defined to be part of the Windows operating system.
    Sincerely,
    Steven R. Wheeler
    4655 Perry Street
    Denver, CO 80212



MTC-00027248

From: Janice Wolfe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    As a consumer of Microsoft products, I feel my opinion is 
noteworthy. Microsoft has been unfairly scrutinized and penalized in 
the past, present, and may be in the future; however, peer companies 
who may have needed review seem to have gone unblemished. 
WhY???????????????????????. Micosoft is ok for me.



MTC-00027249

From: Richard L Steiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would urge the Justice Department to end the costly and 
damaging litigation against Microsoft. I believe the proposed 
settlement is in the public interest. I believe that this settlement 
serves well consumer interests.
    Thank you.
    Richard L. Steiner
    Consumer



MTC-00027250

From: Geoffrey Feldman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Geoffrey Feldman
iddlesex Street #8
Lowell, MA 01851
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have thought from the beginning that the antitrust case 
against Microsoft is wholly and completely wrong. There never should 
have been a trial in the first place. Antitrust laws are outdated in 
a global market. The consumer is not protected by legislation that 
punishes success. Microsoft's opponents claim that Microsoft holds a 
monopoly on the technology market. I submit that such a monopoly is 
impossible. Computer technology is based on innovation, and 
innovation is driven by ideas. Ideas cannot be monopolized.
    Microsoft's supply of ideas comes from its programmers, and its 
programmers are by no stretch of the imagination bound to Microsoft 
for eternity. They are free to leave to work for other companies or 
to start software businesses of their own, and often do so. This 
hardly denotes monopolization of creativity. When Microsoft succeeds 
in the computer industry, it does so because it is competent, not 
because of some sinister conspiracy to barricade other 
companies'' progression. Furthermore, Microsoft relies on other 
companies to manufacture its hardware. This is also not indicative 
of monopoly. Microsoft may enter into exclusive contracts (although 
such will no longer be permitted under the settlement), but this 
represents an agreement reached between two responsible parties, and 
what they do is their own business, as far as I am concerned. 
Indeed, there is nothing private or secret about Microsoft's 
software. The settlement requires open sourcing, but that does not 
mean that Microsoft code was entirely inaccessible before. Any 
determined developer or programmer, given the time and the drive, 
could have figured out what Microsoft was doing long before now. 
Microsoft is not an icon of oppression; rather the corporation 
stands for freedom. Apple is, in contrast, more monopolistic, 
although less successful than Microsoft. Apple has control over 
manufacture of hardware as well as software, and has no intention of 
opening up the market. It has ceased to innovate because it hasn't 
had the need do so. Apple works with Apple alone; it has neither 
diversified nor made outside contracts, and yet it is not nearly as 
successful as Microsoft is. Even quasi-monopolistic practices are 
bad business. Monopoly does not mean success, nor is the inverse the 
case. IBM was once dominant in the market, much as Microsoft is 
today, and they lost a great deal of consumer support when Microsoft 
began putting out their product. IBM may regroup and begin to 
compete head-to-head with Microsoft again in the future, and I would 
gladly welcome such an attempt. Tough competition breeds better 
products and a greater degree of innovation.
    The consumer benefits from competition between companies of 
similar strength, and I say more power to anyone who wants to come 
up against Microsoft.
    I am appalled at the claims that have been made in order to 
bring Microsoft to trial. They are clearly unfounded and irrational. 
I believe in a kind of business Darwinism: the stronger the product, 
the better chance there

[[Page 27966]]

is of survival. I do not think it is wise to protect businesses from 
the harsh realities of tough competition. It does not benefit the 
consumer to have weak companies thrust into the market and given 
advantages they have not earned. This case has gone on long enough, 
and the greatest harm it has done is to the technology industry and 
the economy. Computer makers and users are scared to make a move 
until this case gets resolved, and it is crippling production and 
sales. Moreover, the case has had a tremendous financial drain on 
the economy. You can track the litigation across the years by 
looking at the NASDAQ. The longer the suit lasts, the lower the 
numbers get. This is not rocket science, Sir. I do not believe 
Microsoft is guilty of anything more than success in a fast-paced 
industry. I agree that Microsoft is tough, and provides a higher 
challenge for its competitors to meet. I would rather see the 
challenge met and a stronger company to emerge than Microsoft's 
creativity stultified and the incompetent companies given the chance 
to invade the market. Again, I am outraged that the case was ever 
brought in the first place, but I prefer settlement and a return to 
business than painfully redundant litigation. I urge you to support 
the settlement and allow Microsoft to get back to business. At this 
time, the jusctice department pursuit of Microsoft is causing me 
hardship through its disruption of the computer industry. This will 
only be relieved by the justice department concluding this matter in 
the most expeditious way and one most favorable to Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Geoffrey Feldman



MTC-00027251

From: Todd Harrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:03pm
Subject: Consumer Concerns about MS Settlement...
    Dear DOJ,
    My name is Todd Harrell and I wish to submit my comments 
regarding the MicroSoft case. Let me preface my comments by pointing 
out that I have used personal computers since 1983. I have used 
several platforms and today use a combination of both Windows and 
Apple based systems. I do not wish to engage in a platform war, each 
OS has its advantages and disadvantages. My concern is for the 
future of software development as it relates to my home use, and 
business use.
    It is my belief that the intense competiton within the software 
industry is the reason software has evolved at such a rapid pace. It 
is my opinion that the business practices of Microsoft threaten the 
entire industry. Let me point out that while Microsoft holds a 
monopoly on Operating Systems, I do not feel that this in itself is 
wrong. If a product gains dominant market share based on its own 
merits, I support its position. What concerns me is the predatory 
lengths that MS has gone through to protect its monopoly.
    (1) Innovation: One way I believe MS threatens innovation is 
with its selective targeting of competition.
    Example 1: For several years, I used a presentation package 
known as Aldus Persuasion. Compared with Poweroint, Persuasion 
seemed to have a much more robust set of features. Best of all, 
Aldus corporation aggressively developed this package and each new 
release had a wealth of new tools and features. In my opinion, 
Powerpoint was simply an inferior program. It appears that Microsoft 
simply gave Powerpoint away, and by bundling it with its Office 
suite, it gained a much higher distribution. While Persuasion was a 
far superior program with a promising future, it could not compete 
with MS's predatory practices. Persuasion was finally discontinued. 
Not only did the loss of Persuasion limited my choice, it cost me 
financially because I had to adopt Powerpoint as a presentation 
package.
    Since the death of Persuasion, Powerpoint has all but stopped 
evolving. I use a lot of software (including Powerpoint) an I am 
used to seeing new features as software is upgraded. Unfortunately, 
without competition, Microsoft has no reason to develop Powerpoint 
any further. While most other software continually grows, Powerpoint 
it essentially unchanged from the versions I purchased 5-6 
years ago. Powerpoint is a very crude package with limited 
functionality. It has certainly not evolved at a rate consistant 
with most professional software.
    Example 2: Word vs. Word Perfect. While the focus of my work 
doesn't require much word processing, I have used (I currently have 
licenses of) both products. Simply put, I find WordPerfect easier to 
use. WP also seems to have a reputation of simply being a better 
package. As with Persuasion, WordPerfect has all but disappeared in 
the wake if Microsoft's marketing practices.
    (2) Choice: It is my belief that as a consumer and business 
owner, Microsoft has unfairly limited my choices of software (beyond 
issues as listed above)
    Example 1: For years, I have used Netscape Navigator. Upon the 
initial release of Explorer, I tried MS's browser for possible use 
as my primary browser. I simply did not like Explorer, and continued 
to use Netscape (NN). It seems that in recent years, as Explorer 
gained market share, NN began having compatibility problems with 
certain web sites. While I certainly have no proof, I am concerned 
that perhaps MS's server software or marketing practices have 
purposely sought to ensure that MS controlled sites or ISP's 
intentionally ``break'' with browsers other than IE.
    Example 2: Ease of use. While I use both Windows and Macintosh, 
this past year I have used mostly the Windows OS (because of certain 
software requirements). In my opinion, windows is a more difficult 
OS to use and maintain. For many network administrators, windows 
offers a deep, flexible perating system that gives them a lot of 
technical control. For most of us users though, it is needlesly 
complex, and arguably obsolete. The Macintosh is strong in the 
educational community because of its ease of use. School systems 
can't afford all the network personel required to maintain a PC 
network. Under the current ``proposed'' settlement, 
schools will be forced to accept old computers and a Windows 
standard. Kids will be raised in an environment where only one OS 
exists. I doubt most school systems will be able to maintain an 
efficient network based soley on Windows with out spending lots more 
for the additional support requirements.
    I guess I can go on and on. If you recieve this email and wish 
for me to contribute further, I will list more of the concerns I 
have. Innovation is everything in this industry. If Microsoft is 
allowed to continue its practices, otherwise progressive companies 
will have no incentive to innovate and the entire industry will 
stagnate. Consumers will be hurt as software stops evolving and MS 
is allowed to raise prices, restrict use and control an industry and 
technology founded on innovation. Microsoft is not ethical or 
responsible with its monopoly. They have hurt the OS market, they 
are hurting the handheld market and now they are moving into the 
gaming industry. What's next?
    Simply put, I am a consumer, I want choices, I expect 
innovation. Microft's practice continues to threaten both.
    Todd Harrell
    Techna Design Studio
    Charleston, WV



MTC-00027252

From: Daniel D. Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to accept the Settlement offered to Microsoft by the 
Justice Department. It is reasonable, and pushing it any further 
will only increase the cost to everyone and won't help anything. 
Betty Allen, 520 Old Post Rd. Tolland, CT 06084. (A Senior)



MTC-00027253

From: Chris Oxenreider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement. (NAY)
    To whom it may concern:
    I find that the proposed final judgment against Microsoft lacks 
in a great number of areas. Specifically I wish to highlight these 
important places where improvement, in my opinion, should be sought.
    (1) The settlement is too full of specific industry jargon which 
may become obsolete or rendered useless within a short span of time.
    (2) Microsoft to pay the legal fees for the DOJ. Microsoft has 
been proven in court to have been a monopoly. It is customary and 
usual for the party who has been found against to also pay the legal 
fees of the winning party, including, but not limited to the DOJ and 
the states Attorney Generals offices involved.
    (3) Divesting Microsoft of it's non-software business interests. 
Microsoft is a monopoly. Allowing it to continue to own, hold or 
have influence over it's competition (Apple) through direct 
investment should be prohibited. Allowance for grants and gifts may 
be allowed provided that they come unencumbered.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to own any hardware or service 
providing (Internet, travel, shopping, video games, print media,

[[Page 27967]]

etc) business that is not directly related to it's operating system 
or applications. Microsoft should be limited to it's software 
business and not allowed to own or have major holdings (25%) n 
telecommunications, travel, banking, industrial, utility, or 
commerce business where it's full weight and power may be used to 
allow it to gain additional monopoly standing.
    Microsoft's interest, in whole or in part, in Internet service 
providing companies is akin to allowing Standard Oil to continue as 
it was, but then allowing it to buy companies that make oil using 
equipment and engineering them to become less oil efficient so as to 
use more standard oil.
    (4) Limitations on Microsoft for the purchase/acquisition of 
other technologies and companies (world wide). Microsoft may no 
longer purchase technology or software companies outright. It my 
license on a non-exclusive basis from those companies.
    (5) Inadequate penalties against Microsoft.
    No monetary awards have been stated to help those companies that 
have been hurt by Microsoft's monopoly status (Microware, Netscape, 
SUN, etc).
    (6) Microsoft will be fair and create a ``Chinese 
wall'' between the Operating system division and the 
Applications division and only the publicly published API interfaces 
from the documentation of each may be used to develop software 
within Microsoft. If the Applications developers can only use the 
published ``API's from the Operating system developers and vice 
versa. No unpublished ``faster'' Microsoft exclusive API's 
will be created.
    (7) Inadequate definitions. Examples include Compromised 
security, and anti-privacy.
    (8) Microsoft shall not overly encumber competitive analysis of 
it's software by unduly restricting it's license agreements to 
prohibit competitive analysis (for example as Oracle on NT vs 
Solaris).
    (9) No provisions for fostering competitive software creators. 
There are no provisions for fostering (via monetary penalties) other 
alternative software and operating systems. Unencumbered university 
grants and gifts. Grants and gifts to independent software 
developers, consultants and individuals. Microsoft may license the 
technologies from the above mentioned, but may not have exclusive 
right to those technologies.
    (10) No provisions for fostering competitive operating systems. 
Microsoft shall agree to make available the 20 (minimally) most 
popular software applications for home and the 20 (minimally) most 
popular software applications for business applications on the top 
10 competing operating systems. Said software will be identical to 
that released for it's own operating system in features. Software 
for the top 5 competitive operating systems shall be available no 
more than 90 days after the release for it's own operating system, 
and no more than 180 days for the remaining operating systems.
    (11) Inadequate oversight of Microsoft post settlement.
    (1) The TC should be 7 people (1 Microsoft selected member, 3 
plaintiff selected members, and 1 designated representative each 
from the groups IEEE, IETF and NIST [or their successors/assigns]).
    (2) Define ``any competitor to Microsoft'' (does that 
mean any LINUX users)
    (3) no provision for input from enlightened public members
    (12) Stipulation that Microsoft must adhere no only to the 
letter of the law but the spirit of the law as well.
    (13) Termination should be no less than 15 years and no more 
than 35 years.
    (14) Inadequate stipulations that Microsoft must adhere to 
international and Internet (IETF, RFC, et all), POSIX, etc [or their 
successors and assigns] with out rendering them incompatible in the 
Microsoft implementation.
    (15) Inadequate stipulations for opening Microsoft's standards 
to allow interoperability from competitive software creators with 
out encumbering non-disclosure, or requisite partnerships or 
strategic alliances. Example: Opening the standards for .doc and 
presentation format so a competitive interface to an ``outlook 
client'' might be created.
    (16) Exclusive use of Microsoft owned and or operated 
information distribution systems as the sole point for the 
dissemination of data regarding interoperability. The use of a 
wholly owned Microsoft network at the control of Microsoft to 
disseminate information about how to create compatible software 
seems counter intuitive. Minimally, this information should be 
freely available from a Microsoft supported third party. Information 
above and beyond what is required by the final judgment may be on 
Microsoft network for a fee is not unreasonable.
    (17) Inadequate allowance for ``open source'' 
developers to flourish.



MTC-00027254

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to respond to the Justice Department's request for 
comments from the public on the proposed Microsoft settlement. While 
I am sure this settlement agreement will have its detractors,it 
seems a reasonable compromise. Hopefully it will bring stability and 
progress in the software industry.
    This settlement offers the opportunity to close the case with 
certainty. Microsoft has offered a number of serious concessions, 
including its agreement to open Windows operating systems so that 
non-Microsoft software can be configured into the system. If 
implemented, this provision, standing alone, will have an immediate, 
positive effect on the software market. Please take advantage of 
this opportunity and settle the case as soon as possible. The public 
interest will not be served by the alternative.
    Sincerely,
    Milton Ross
    108 Meadowbrook Country Club
    Ballwin, MO 63011



MTC-00027255

From: hank henry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, I have never sent a letter like this before.I would have 
never thought it would be necessary.
    I used to be a fan of Microsoft, I thought they represented the 
American dream.i.e.
    A group of young entrepreneurs changing the would for the better 
and getting rich in the process.
    Having watched there business practices over the years, and now 
working in the computer industry, I have a completely different view 
of Microsoft. They are predators that feel that they are above the 
law. If any other industry behaved in such a fashion there would be 
a public outcry. Computer operating systems are harder for most to 
understand. (If one company owned 95% of the petroleum distribution 
centers in our country, than started a car company and changed all 
the fueling nozzles to only fit their car it would not be tolerated) 
They do not even seemed to have learned by this latest litigation, 
they seem even more arrogant then usual.
    Fair competition is good for our economy and society, abusing a 
monopoly to stifle competition is not.
    Thank you for time
    Hank Henry



MTC-00027256

From: Ralph Alberti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Agreement
    I implore you to move beyond this settlement and let Microsoft 
continue to go about its business of creating products that benefit 
us all.
    Ralph Alberti



MTC-00027257

From: Frank Disparted
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:08pm
Subject: Assalt on Microsoft
    I Microsoft has been a great benefit to me as a user of their 
products. They produce the best and have made a standard for the 
industry, if you remember a few years ago when one could spend hours 
trying to make a new program work. I thing the people bringing 
charges against Microsoft are fishing for money. The other 
competitors cannot keep-up and are leaning on the Government to help 
them compete. It is shame an American Company leading the world get 
stabbed in the back form it own government. Would everyone be happy 
if we shipped Microsoft to China? Shame shame shame.
    Frank L. Disparte
    Kiwanis Club Huntington Beach
    Ocean View Key Club Advisor
    [email protected]



MTC-00027258

From: Mickey Roberson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Matter

[[Page 27968]]

    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft
    I am retired now, but in my working career I labored at a large 
company for others and finally as the owner of my own company. I 
understand how business works and there are occasions when the 
Federal and State governments do have a stake in how a business 
conducts its affairs. Unabashed polution of the environment, 
negligent disregard for workers'' safety, underage and illegal 
immigrant labor come to mind. However, this Microsoft prosecution 
has been wrongheaded and bogus from the start.
    Microsoft being charged as being monopolistic is ridiculous and 
I am living proof of that. In my life with computers I have owned 
SIX Apple laptop computers and ZERO computers that use any Microsoft 
products at all. To the best of my knowledge I have never 
contributed one cent to the revenues of Microsoft or the personal 
fortune of Bill Gates. I have purchased Apple computers with ease as 
well as the software to operate them and am perfectly happy with my 
computing access, so how in the world can Microsoft be a monopoly if 
I have nothing to do with them. If someone does not like Microsoft, 
just buy an Apple like I have.
    The only thing I know about Windows is that it is an operating 
system I do not need, use or want. My understanding though is that 
Microsoft has agreed to share some sort of protocols or proprietary 
information that would help its competitors benefit from Microsoft 
innovation and market penetration and that seems reasonable enough 
to me to settle this prosecution that should never have taken place 
to start with.
    This Federal prosecution and the resulting original decision are 
to me the seminal events that started the plunge of the NASDAQ and 
the fall of the value in many technology stocks, which by the way 
has cost me many thousands of dollars in the value of my retirement 
savings. This plunge has also cost hundreds of thousands of people 
their jobs, resulted in I am sure billions of dollars of loss to our 
general economy and a tremendous reduction in the tax dollars 
flowing into the federals coffers as revenue. It seems almost insane 
for the U.S. government to attack one of its largest companies which 
was the world leader in an area in which the only direction seemed 
up. Some foreign governments give monetary support to their own 
companies in an effort to compete with U.S. companies, but here with 
Microsoft the Federal government is trying to destroy a U.S. 
company. Since Microsoft was not, is not and cannot be a monopoly, 
it would be interesting to know why Janet Reno and her associates 
really prosecuted, but I will not hold my breath waiting for the 
truth as that will never be known.
    Please Mr. Ashcroft, halt this persecution and reach some sort a 
settlement that will allow the technology sector of our economy to 
begin to recover where common citizens can go back to work in this 
sector and help bring us out of this recession. To continue this 
prosection or end it with some draconian destruction of Microsoft 
with only worsen the economy, cause more bankruptcies and cost more 
thousands of workers their jobs. Bill Gates has been humbled. U.S 
Senators and Representatives have had plenty of face time on TV. 
Enough damage has already been done, please no more.
    Sincerely yours,
    Mickey Roberson
    Atlanta, GA



MTC-00027259

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    PLEASE LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE. THEY HAVE BEEN HOUNDED 
``ENUF. I HAD A COMUTERBACK WHEN I HAD TO HAVE SOMEONE PROGTAM 
IT FOR ME ``TILL BILL AND HIS CREW CAME ALONG AND GAVE US A 
PROGRAM THAT EVERYOND COULD USE. A REAL STANDARD.



MTC-00027260

From: Sudeep Gupta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern, I am an avid user of Microsoft products, 
but I do not agree with the Department of Justice's settlement 
agreement with them.
    Microsoft engages in predatory pricing, locks out competition to 
their products by leveraging their monopoly in other fields, and 
even behaved appallingly during the trial-- faking video-taped 
evidence, lying about statements (such as claiming they don't track 
``market share''), and other issues. It surprises me that 
the settlement is so favorable to them. I am concerned that the 
settlement does nothing to address the fundamental problem that 
Microsoft can leverage their monopoly in operating systems, business 
software, and their growing influence with media and Internet 
content to bolster their control in any of the other business 
spaces.
    Please reconsider the proposed settlement, and develop a plan 
that will actually benefit consumers and prevent Microsoft from 
engaging in illegal business practices.
    Sincerely,
    Sudeep Gupta
    6209 Monticello Drive
    Frisco, TX 75035
    972-712-1020



MTC-00027261

From: John Eure
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please reject the proposed settlement in favor of one that will 
actually prevent Microsoft from continuing to illegally exploit its 
monopoly. At a minimum, this should require them to offer all of 
their desktop programs (Office, for example) for MacOS and Linux 
(the only other significant desktop OSes), and to offer all of their 
server programs (IIS, for example) for Linux, Solaris, and several 
other varieties of UNIX (the only other major server OSes). By 
requiring them to provide applications support to their major OS 
competitors, you will prevent them from leveraging their OS monopoly 
into a number of applications monopolies, as seems to have already 
happened with word processing, where MS Word is the default 
standard. (By the way, all this could also be accomplished by 
braking the company up into OS, applications/hardware, and 
networking divisions.)
    I urge you not to cave in to Microsoft's continuing whining. The 
US economy cannot afford to support the dead weight of a monopoly 
for any longer. Competition equals a healthy free market, and a 
monopoly provides neither. If Microsoft's punishment is inadequate, 
I fear that its straglehold on the stagnating US tech market will 
drag our economy into a deep and long-lasting depression.
    Thanks,
    John Eure
    (a US citizen, registered voter, and computer scientist)



MTC-00027262

From: David Walser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement in this very important trial 
is not in the public interest.
    First, the settlement doesn't go far enough in preventing 
Microsoft's further abuse of its monopoly for continued monopoly 
maintenance. Through its control of the technology and licensing, 
Microsoft is able to make its software widely used. For software 
such as Office and Media Player, Microsoft controlled file formats 
become entrenched, and interoperability becomes crucial to users who 
wish to use non-Microsoft software. Microsoft's ability to control 
these file formats through control of the technology and licensing 
allows them to hamper attempts by makers of alternative software to 
interoperate with these file formats. An effective remedy, that 
would reduce the barrier to entry for competing operating systems, 
would require Microsoft to make full specifications to these file 
formats openly available to the public, in advance of the release of 
the Microsoft products the formats are to be used with. They should 
also be prohibited from using Intellectual Property laws such as 
Copyright and Patenting to get around this requirement. When 
Microsoft argued their Copyright allowed them to completely control 
the desktop shipped by OEMs, the Court already shot down this 
argument. The file formats should be completely open with no 
limitations, which brings me to my next complaint about the 
settlement. It relies heavily on the use of ``Reasonable and 
Non-Discriminatory'' (RAND) licensing of technologies for which 
Microsoft is required to cooperate with the industry. Unfortunately, 
as has been discussed recently at the World Wide Web Consortium 
(W3C), RAND licensing can't avoid being discriminatory, as it's 
incompatible with Open Source licensing (as defined by the Open 
Source Initiative, http://www.opensource.org/). As Open Source 
software is the only credible competition to Microsoft currently, 
this is a very big problem. The remedy should rely on no provision 
which lets Microsoft only cooperate with commercial entities, and

[[Page 27969]]

should be careful that Open Source software can benefit equally.
    Another problem with the proposed settlement is it is very 
vague, and gives Microsoft too much power over carrying out the 
provisions of the settlement. A remedy should be very clear about 
what Microsoft must do, and cannot do. It should be very clear where 
authority lies in carrying out and enforcing it, and that authority 
should not lay in the hands of Microsoft's directors. There are too 
many places in the proposed settlement where exceptions are defined, 
and Microsoft gets to decide when those come into play. As should be 
obvious from the last settlement reached between Microsoft and the 
DOJ, exceptions and loopholes should be kept to a minimum. The 
exceptions in the current proposed settlement reduce it to almost 
nothing.
    Finally, the biggest problem with the proposed settlement is it 
lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. Under its terms, Microsoft 
could more or less ignore it, with no real penalty. An appropriate 
remedy should be careful to address this.



MTC-00027263

From: Daniel Brewer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I object to the settlement with Microsoft as it is currently 
proposed. The settlement is a step in the right direction, but it is 
not sufficient to stop the harm that Microsoft's monopoly inflicts 
on consumers and competitors. I believe that it would leave 
Microsoft basically intact and with too much room to evade the 
settlement's provisions. Also, it would do too little to end the 
barrier to market entry that Windows'' existing applications 
hold against all other operating systems. Further, the settlement 
would not end the barrier to entry that Windows'' boot loader 
enforces against other operating systems.
    I believe that we must have public proceedings under the Tunney 
Act to give consumers a voice in creating a fair settlement.
    Thank you for your time in reading this message.
    Daniel Brewer
    503 SE 12th Ave Apt #11
    Portland, OR 97207
    (503)231-8977



MTC-00027264

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    Terry Feazel
    7195 Wyandot Lane
    Middletown, OH 45044



MTC-00027265

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:23pm
Subject: Microsoftsettlement
To whom it may concern,
    As a consumer of microsoft products I think they should be 
lauded--not persecuted--for what they have done. Please 
leave microsoft alone. They should not be punished for the good job 
they have done.
    Our country did not fight Communism in Europe and Asia only to 
bring it here in this antitrust; read harassment, case against 
Microsoft and its brilliant, humanitarian creator, Bill Gates.
    Please praise microsoft instead of attacking them.
    Bradley Sidman
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027266

From: Paul Olofson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attn: Department of Justice
    In response to the DOJ's unwarrented assault on Microsoft, I 
would like to contribute the following points.
    Item 1)
    Price of Operating System
    US Government--The US Government claims that Microsoft 
should only charge $45 for their operating system. Their current 
price gouges the consumer.
    Reality--Out of the several of operating systems on the 
market, Windows is priced competitively. Microsoft had 2,600 people 
working on Windows 2000. They spend 6 billion a year on R&D. 
They should be allowed to charge a price that consumers think the 
product is worth and to run their own business. There is a free 
operating system named Linux on the market. You can pick up a 
popular version of this free software at CompUSA for about $80. The 
judge in the Microsoft case seems to think that Microsoft should 
charge less than the free operating system. Additionally, lowering 
the price would improve market position, an idea the US Government 
opposes.
    Item 2)
    Microsoft gave away Interned Explorer to try to put Netscape out 
of business and dominate the internet browser market.
    US Government--US Government claimed that Netscape was 
severely damaged by MS because Netscape also had to give away its 
browser to compete, thus depriving NetScape revenues and a chance to 
compete in the marketplace.
    Reality--This point is contrary to the first item of MS 
overcharging consumers. What better deal for consumers than free? 
During the trial, the value of Netscape went from 5 billion to 10 
billion when it was finally acquired. How can a company be put out 
of business if it was valued at 10 billion dollars? Using US 
Government logic, the real culprit would be America Online. AOL, the 
dominant internet service provider, has swallowed up two companies 
that used to charge for their browsers (first CompuServe then 
NetScape). Lastly, note that AOL has refused to endorse browser 
standards. Without these standards companies are forced to spend 
time and effort on cross-browser development. Since the Netscape 
browser has refused to adopt these standards, the market share of 
the Netscape has continued to decline.
    Item 3)
    Microsoft is a Monopoly
    DOJ--Microsoft is a Monopoly due to their percent market 
share in intel based computers.
    Reality--I can remember when DOS 5 and Windows 95 came out. 
At CompUSA, consumers put their names on waiting lists to buy the 
new operating systems. Do people do this for OS2, Linux or Apple 
operating systems? Consumers like Windows at the price offered or 
they would buy other products. How much market share should MS give 
up before they are not a considered a monopoly? Who would decide 
what consumers would have to switch to other operating systems?
    MS has 10% of worldwide software market while Cisco has an 
estimate 75% of worldwide router market and currently is the highest 
valued company in the world. I guess Cisco is next!
    Item 4)
    Microsoft stifles innovation
    US Government--US Government claims that MS dominance 
stifles innovation. I don?t think US Government offered any evidence 
here.
    Reality--When I started working as a government contractor 
in 1989, everyone I know used Lotus and WordPerfect. Over the next 
couple of years, MS introduced Office for Windows which included a 
host of features other companies didn?t have. Drag and drop, 
autofill, autocorrect, outlining and a standard programming language 
across applications (VBA) to name a few. When my colleagues, in the 
office of diehard Lotus and WordPerfect users, started using the new 
releases of Microsoft Software, they as well as myself were happy to 
have the new capabilities and switched to Microsoft products. 
Microsoft consistently has top rated products at competitive prices. 
Please review the following web sites as evidence of this. 
www.tpc.org http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/news/default.asp
    TPC.org shows that Microsoft is the leader in ecommerce software 
(database and operating systems) in terms of overall speed and in 
price/performance. The Microsoft site references the award Microsoft 
SQL Server has recently won. Most notable is the industry survey of 
5,000 businesses as the best business database software.
    The list goes on for many Microsoft products.

[[Page 27970]]

    Item 5)
    Bill Gates has too much money.
    Reality--I heard that one on CSPAN. ?No one person should 
have that much money.? Bill Gates owns about 16% of a company he 
helped start over 25 years ago. That's a crime? Microsoft pays a lot 
in taxes and employs thousands of people who also pay a lot of taxes 
and develops great products.
    Item 7)
    The other bigger question
    US Government thinks the US Government should control private 
companies.
    Reality--I am sure everybody would disagree with this fact 
idea, but the actions of the government prove otherwise. The private 
sector is the better innovator. Why would anyone want the government 
deciding what a private company could put in software?
    Microsoft invests billions of dollars in R&D every year to 
find out what people want and how things work best. They use this 
data to implement these ideas in software consumers want to buy.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Olofson
    4524 Banff Street
    Annandale, VA 22003



MTC-00027267

From: lady Bug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft settlement was good, because it allows computer 
manufacturers to provide competitive services along with Windows 
without worrying about any negative reactions from Microsoft. 
Competition is healthy for the economy (quality and price stability) 
and consumers can actually choose from more choices.
    Thank you.



MTC-00027268

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern I am a 19 year old student in New York. I 
am currently studying in the field of Information Systems. This 
United States vs Microsoft case affects not only those in the field 
already, but those who plan to pursue a career in computers and 
those who use the products on a day to day basis.
    I think that the case against Microsoft should be left alone 
because if more smaller companies are allowed to come in, it can 
hurt the economy even more. I think they should be left alone 
because they are a closed market space, if smaller companies came up 
and made products and made it free or sell it cheaper, the stocks 
would go down drastically. It wouldnt be an unhealthy competition 
because Microsoft products are already settled and proven. We have 
already seen disasters that have shaken the economy. We do not need 
a technology disaster on top of all that has occured. Everyone is 
used to the products that are being used currently; that a change 
might not be appreciated greatly.
    Thank you for allowing me to share my input.
    Sincerely
    Zohra Habib



MTC-00027269

From: Reed, Eric
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I do not believe that the ``Anti-Trust'' laws in this 
country are in the ``public good''. I think they only prop 
up companies that can not compete in the market, and, in so doing, 
prop up prices which would otherwise be lowered by a more pure form 
of competition.
    I also think that asking the public what is in there own best 
interests will yield you nothing but 250 million different best 
interests.
    Eric Reed



MTC-00027270

From: Robert Ripley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Please see letter attached.
    Sincerely,
Robert Ripley
1O507 View High
Kansas City, No 64134-2448
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support for Microsoft in its 
antitrust case. In November 2001, Microsoft agreed to settle the 
case. There are many provisions that Microsoft has accepted that 
make a strong case for accepting the settlement.
    Microsoft has approved the sale of its products, at an equal 
price for all, to the leading 20 computer makers. Not only this, but 
Microsoft has granted rival software developers open access to 
Windows and other documents relating to Microsoft products. These 
are only two of the many areas in which Microsoft has agreed to 
compromise.
    I believe that the terms of the settlement with Microsoft are 
liberal towards their rivals, to-say-the-least. The Justice 
Department should take this historic opportunity to end this 
antitrust case and let all sides involved move on to bigger and 
better endeavors.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Ripley



MTC-00027271

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe that the Microsoft organization should not be split up 
or be subjected to any division such as AT&T. This will only 
confusion prices of soft ware will increase and any service will be 
subjected to fees.



MTC-00027272

From: James E. Swain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is outrageous that Microsoft should have to be involved in 
any ``settlement!'' The executives and employees of 
Microsoft should be praised for the tremendous wealth they have 
created--not vilified for their success.
    The Justice Department and law enforcement agencies should only 
be concerned with Microsoft if there have been violations of the 
rights of others. Since there weren't any, Microsoft should be left 
alone to do business as they see fit and continue to create wealth.
    James E. Swain, Ph.D.



MTC-00027273

From: Eileen J. Palumbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get this settlement done with now. Microsoft has already 
agreed to the settlement terms and is trying to cooperate fully with 
the Justice Department. No one wins by dragging this out and only 
more money is being spent by a government that is pouring billions 
into the economy and defense. We don't need to be spending money on 
a case that should have been settled months ago.
    Eileen Palumbo



MTC-00027274

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    Anne Teixeira
    1743 N Wintook Dr
    Ivins, UT 84738



MTC-00027275

From: Bob W. Nix
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Don't drag this out any longer as it will only punish more 
consumers. Settle with

[[Page 27971]]

Microsoft and get on with it! Let the free enterprise system work
    Bob Nix



MTC-00027276

From: Greg Wojcik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: Gregory L. Wojcik Ph.D.
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
From: Gregory Wojcik
7145 Hihn Road
Ben Lomond, CA 95005
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I work for a company that produces software 
which operates on multiple platforms including Windows, and am also 
an end-user of several Microsoft Operating Systems, Middleware and 
Applications both at work and at home.
    The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft (MS) has a monopoly 
on Intel-compatible PC operating systems, and that the company's 
market position is protected by a substantial barrier to entry, and 
that Microsoft is liable under Sherman Act 2 for illegally 
maintaining its monopoly. According to the Court of Appeals ruling, 
``a remedies decree in an antitrust case must seek to 
`unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct', to 
``terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the 
fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure that there remain no 
practices likely to result in monopolization in the future''.
    Like all those found guilty of a crime, Microsoft need to be 
punished for their actions--ideally in a way that attempts to 
restore competition and undoes the damage inflicted on the consumer 
by their anticompetitive behaviour. MS has profitted greatly from 
their behaviour, and the fruits of their illegal actions must be 
denied to them.
    Previous court ordered remedies have shown that Microsoft 
willfully ignores and attempts to circumvent any restrictions placed 
on them by careful selection of the language used in these remedies, 
and stalling with continued appeals such that by the time a 
resolution occurs, there is no surviving competition.
    Microsoft show no signs of remorse or attempts to change their 
pattern of behaviour. Indeed, while conceding certain points on 
existing Operating Systems (OS), they are careful to ensure that 
applications (such as Microsoft Office Suite) and future products 
such as .NET are excluded from any restrictions. It is clear from 
their pattern of behaviour that they will attempt to monopolise 
these markets, and that nothing but the most severe restrictions on 
their behaviour will have any effect.
    Since many of the companies adversely affected by Microsoft are 
no longer operating due to the illegal monopoly, it is hard to make 
reparation to them. Rather, the remedy must seek to redress the harm 
done to the consumer, and to prevent Microsoft continuing to use its 
illegaly gained market dominance to monopolise new markets. It is 
apparent that Microsoft traditionally gains dominance in a new 
market buy tying sales of one product to sales of another--for 
example, the bundling of Microsoft Office with Windows, and the 
intimidation of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to ensure 
that this continues to the exclusion of competitors. Their willful 
circumvention of previous court restrictions, which violate the 
spirit if not the exact letter of the agreements, indicate that MS 
must be given no latitude in which to avoid punishment. The only 
option remaining if this is true, is a structural remedy.
    Structural Remedy: The existing MS corporation must be split 
into at least 5 separate companies, each of which is barred from 
operating in the other 4 areas or joining with one of the other 
compnaies for a period of not less than 10 years. The company should 
be split along the following lines:- Operating Systems, Computer 
Programming Languages (must include .NET and C#), Applications 
(such as MS Office), Hardware (including XBox), and Internet 
Services (MSN etc).
    Microsoft continually use their monopoly position in each of 
these sections to dominate others--and must be denied the 
opportunity to do so in the only method it appears that will work. 
It is imperative that the .NET be split from all other services, 
since it is clear MS intends to use this to tie in future 
applications and services and `lock out'' competing 
products. Previous anti-trust cases which have resulted in large 
corporations being split extensively detail prohibitions on these 
individual companies. It is clear that despite all evidence pointing 
to a structural remedy as being the only solution, the courts are 
unlikely to impose such a remedy. Whether or not this is 
implemented, the following aspects of MS illegal behaviour must be 
addressed.
    Consumers Overcharged and Require Compensation: In addition to 
monopolising markets, the consumer has been harmed by Microsoft 
products being overpriced than would have occurred had competition 
been available. Once again, Microsoft must be denied any profits 
from their illegal activities. The consumer must be recompensed for 
this, and so a substantial cash fine should be levied against MS, 
which would then be divided amongst all registered users of 
Microsoft products. This fine should be no less than 1 billion US 
dollars--note that MS currently have cash reserves of over $35 
billion and this is increasing rapidly--it is a small fine to 
MS.
    Should this not prove to be practical, then MS should still be 
fined, but with the money going to the purchase of computer and 
computer related hardware for schools, colleges and charity groups. 
MS should not be allowed to provide software for these systems, and 
alternatives such as Apple computers or free software such as Linux 
must be used instead. This will not only return some benefit to the 
consumer, but prevent further harm done to MS competitors.
    Applications Barrier to Entry: Significant barriers exist to 
competing products in the marketplace due to Microsofts illegal 
monopoly. These must be eroded and removed in the following ways: By 
forbidding retaliation against OEMs, Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), and Independant 
Hardware Vendors (IHVs) who support or develop alternatives to 
Windows.
    All APIs and file formats (MS Word, MS Excel, MS Access, MS 
Powerpoint, MS Outlook and Outlook Express, WMP--the Microsoft 
Middleware Products) should be available to ISVs and HSVs. File 
formats should be open and available for public viewing at no cost. 
Any changes made to APIs and file formats must be announced and 
specified a period of time must have passed before these changes are 
implemented (e.g. 180 days for APIs and 90 days for file formats). 
Current definitions of APIs allow MS to avoid releasing 
documentation on many important interfaces. File formats, while an 
important barrier to entry, are currently not included in the 
proposed settlement and must be publicly disclosed.
    Wording of the licence agreement for ISVs accessing APIs and 
documentation shall state that it will solely be for the purpose of 
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product or with 
application software written for Windows. Current phrasing limits 
this to OS only.
    Definitions of requirements for companies or individuals to 
access APIs should be publicly available and independently 
enforced--MS should have no say in this part of the decision 
process.
    All patents covering the Windows APIs must be disclosed. 
Currently those ISVs producing Windows-compatible operating systems 
are uncertain if they are infringing on Microsoft software patents. 
Wording of the current proposed final judgement should not prevent 
ISVs using released APIs to make alternative OSs compatible with 
Windows based OSs.
    Forced Upgrades Must be Stopped: MS abuses its monopoly postion 
by forcing consumers to upgrade from older products to newer ones, 
at substantial cost. Since there is now no effective competition due 
to the illegal actions, the consumer has no alternative but to go 
with MS products. By altering file formats in latest releases that 
are incompatible with older versions, and by removing older products 
from sale, MS force the consumer to upgrade.
    To prevent this, file formats for all Office Applications and 
WMP must be publicly available at no cost to allow alternatives to 
be developed. This is mentioned in detail above.
    To prevent the removal of older products that are still viable 
applications, Microsoft must continue to support older products for 
at least 15 years after their introduction. MS may choose not to 
support the software during this time citing that it is not a useful 
product, in which case it is allowed to do so but must make the 
entire MS source code to the application publicly and freely 
available. Under these circumstances, users may maintain and compile 
the software themselves. This will apply to operating systems as 
well as middleware and applications.
    Prohibiting practices towards OEMs: In addition to current 
restrictions in the

[[Page 27972]]

Proprosed Final Judgement (PFJ), Microsoft must be restricted 
against reprisals for OEMs that sell PCs with a competing OS but no 
Microsoft OS.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform terms 
and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing about 
smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs if they offer competing products. There should be 
selected `groups'' of OEMs of varying sizes, for example 
OEMs 1-20, 21-100, 101-1000, 1001+, and in those 
bands prices must be uniform and published on all MS OS, 
Applications, and Middleware products.
    Market Development Allowances (discounts) to OEMs must be fully 
disclosed in public. Discounts may not be given in one product (e.g. 
Office Applications) due to sales in another product (e.g. OS). This 
will prevent MS using its OS dominance to move its monopoly into 
other areas. Enforcement: MS will attempt to circumvent all remedies 
to the best of their ability. Strong, independent and effective 
supervision of MS is necessary, and a panel of several industry 
experts (chosen by the courts and complainants, with minimal input 
by MS) must be allowed full and unfettered access to MS documents. 
They will be provided with support staff, and be paid for by MS at 
competitive rates given their experience. This panel should have the 
ability to force release of MS documentation and source code, and 
delay the release of products until compliance is complete. Any 
undisclosed APIs discovered should result in a large cash fine. 
Current proposed enforcement allows no incentive for MS to comply 
with the remedy. Some of the above stated remedies may seem extreme, 
but given the magnitude of the MS corporation and the extend to 
which it has broken the law, the remedies must be of a similar 
magnitude. As stated in the first few paragraphs, the intent of any 
remedy is to restore competition, terminate the monopoly, deny the 
benefits of the illegal actions, and prevent such abuses from 
ocurring in the future. Due to the uncooperative nature of MS, the 
remedy must be decisive and strongly enforced.
    While MS has already done considerable harm to the consumer by 
its illegal actions, there are many future markets in which MS can 
gain a further monopoly--and exacerbate the problem. They must 
be prevented from doing so. If an individual commits a crime where 
the public have been illegaly overcharged that individual will be 
fined, and perhaps imprisoned--and certainly would be if he was 
a repeat offender shown to ignore previous court orders. Microsoft 
must be no different, or justice will not be done, and will not be 
seen to be done.
    Dr. Greg L. Wojcik
    7145 Hihn Road
    Ben Lomond, CA 95005
    Phone: (831) 335-4670
    E-mail:[email protected]



MTC-00027277

From: Jason G. Fleming
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am AGAINST the proposed settlement. Microsoft cheats. They are 
GUILTY, and a break-up is the only useful remedy.
    Jason G. Fleming
    North Carolina State University, USA
    http://www4.ncsu.edu/jgflemin



MTC-00027278

From: Wilbur Goodwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:32pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    In accordance with the review and comment provisions of the 
Tunney Act, as noticed in the Federal Register, I am most 
appreciative of the opportunity to provide my comments pertaining to 
the proposed Microsoft Settlement. These comments are provided in 
addition to those previously provided by me in my email to you dated 
January 5, 2002. My comments are provided for your serious 
consideration as follows:
    I recently learned that AOL-Time Warner (AOL-TW), through its 
subsidiary, Netscape Communications Corporation, filed suit against 
Microsoft this past Tuesday for alleged anticompetitive conduct 
regarding its browser, charging that Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer (IE) browser illegally harmed Netscape Navigator's (NN) 
browser. This is absurd! I find it most ironic that AOL-TW purchased 
Netscape Navigator for $10 billion in the midst of the Department of 
Justice trial, even after hearing concrete evidence that IE's 
success in the market was based on merit, not market share !! I 
fully concur with that evidence because I have both browsers 
installed on my personal computer, which I use every day, and I can 
assure you that I use IE almost exclusively because of its 
comparative speed, efficiency and overall reliability. I seriously 
question AOL-TW's motive for their ill-timed, ill advised decision. 
In my humble opinion, this latest legal move by AOL-TW appears to be 
an attempt to once again retreat from the rigors of competition to 
the safer confines or the courtrooom, where the company is obviously 
much more comfortable. I am most disappointed, though not surprised, 
that AOL-TW has again chosen litigation over some other much more 
constructive resolution to this matter. I firmly believe that 
Microsoft has consistently tried to work more closely with AOL-TW in 
a variety of areas, including improvement of instant messaging 
interoperability, getting fair and open access to AOL-TW's dominant 
cable assets and partnering in technology standards that are key to 
developing future innovative technologies.
    Based on my knowledge and belief, AOL-TW has repeatedly rebuffed 
Microsoft's efforts, to the detriment of consumers, shareholders and 
the technology industry, and has turned to politics and litigation 
instead, a most cost-inefficient process for all 
concerned!Furthermore, more litigation is the last thing that 
consumers, shareholders and the industry need. AOL-TW and Microsoft 
both need to focus on market competition and technical cooperation 
that will make consumers'' computing experiences easier, more 
efficient and more enjoyable, rather than spending more needless 
time and resources in the nation's courtrooms. It is my firm 
conviction that if AOL-TW would focus their efforts, energies and 
R&D funding on innovation rather litigation by acquiring, 
nurturing and maintaining a technical staff of highly skilled 
manpower resources, as Microsoft has, they would not have to resort 
to such needless litigation and the federal courtrooms! Moreover, it 
is my opinion that If they (AOL-TW) can't compete on their own merit 
in this arena (internet browsers), then they should reassess their 
business strategy and pursue another course of potential 
opportunity!
    I am not only disturbed, but I am appalled, by the timing of the 
AOL-TW lawsuit. I simply can't help but believe that AOL-TW's 
lawsuit was calculated to undermine the proposed settlement achieved 
among Microsoft, the US Department of Justice and a bipartisan group 
of State Attorneys General in the original antitrust case! Let it be 
known that I fully support the proposed settlement between Microsoft 
and the US Government. I believe this proposed settlement is more 
than fair to both Microsoft and its competition, and I sincerely 
hope that there will be no further action taken against Microsoft at 
the Federal level. This proposed settlement has been reached after 
extensive negotiations, and allows Microsoft to continue designing 
and marketing its innovative software, while benefitting the 
technology industry as a whole.
    Microsoft has pledged to carry out all provisions of this 
proposed settlement, and the US Government has created a technical 
oversight committee to ensure Microsoft's compliance therewith. I 
sincerely believe that this proposed settlement will benefit 
everyone--the economy, computer industry, consumers and 
shareholders. Furthermore, I believe it will be most productive to 
allow Microsoft to devote all of its available resources to 
innovation, something it truly excells at, rather than further 
needless litigation. By ending this needless and futile litigation, 
in my opinion, AOL-TW can also cut its ``losses'' as well 
and get back to the basics. Truly a win-win situation.
    Accordingly, I strongly urge you to do everything in your power, 
legally possible, to ensure that the proposed settlement is 
finalized and executed in the most expeditious manner.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this 
matter.
    Wilbur L. Goodwin (Retired)
    104 Emerald Lake Road
    Columbia, SC 29209-4243
    Email Address: [email protected]



MTC-00027279

From: David Zdanowicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement needs adjusting
    I am an (ISV) Independent Software Vendor, in the computer arena 
since punched cards and paper tape days. I have used competing 
products ( non Microsoft) for DOS and Windows desktop development 
for

[[Page 27973]]

over 20 years. Borland's Turbo Basic totally ruled in quality, 
speed, etc, over Microsoft's Quick Basic.
    Result: Quick Basic had to be improved. I do remember the 
incompatibilities Microsoft introduced in Windows 3.1: DR DOS , 
later Novell DOS 7. 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. DOS 
API ?s were used to call up the services of the operating system.
    As for the Windows world, I do not use any Microsoft development 
tool. I've found better ones. FREEDOM OF CHOICE IS WONDERFUL. 
Microsoft still sells plenty of desktop OS's for which I will 
continue to develop for. HOWEVER non-documented API calls (section 
III. B.) DEFINITELY HINDERS COMPETITION by wasting time correcting 
the behavior of the Windows API. Perhaps Microsoft could afford a 
messily $10 million/yr to an INDEPENDENT organization to better 
document THEIR UNDOCUMENTED API. III
    Definition A--SHOULD define ``'' to mean the 
interfaces between application programs and the operating system; 
NOT just the interface between Middleware( definition J) and 
Windows. Definition K defines ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product'' to mean essentially Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft 
Java (MJ), Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), and 
Outlook Express (OE). ADD: Office Products and Outlook, preferably 
delete Middleware terminology altogether.
    III.J.2 Exceptions
    Microsoft seems to be able to cut off information given to 
projects such as Wine (runs some of Microsoft's API calls). Projects 
like Linux's WINE should also be supported with some donations ? 
Supporting free enterprise. Microsoft should feel honored that their 
interface (desktop) is so popular. Requiring ``Windows 
software'' to be run on a ``Windows operating 
system'' should be totally denied (from some of their C++ 
licensing).
    David Zdanowicz
    Windows and Web Developer
    Florida



MTC-00027280

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Ramasami
Suny Stony Brook Student
Elmony, NY
11003
1/27/02
    Upon hearing the settlement in the United States v. Microsoft 
case, as a concerned college student and computer science major 
hopeful, I was personally dissapointed to hear that Microsoft 
recieved such a lenient settelment. Although the the courts decision 
allows for open competition among browsers, media tools and other 
software applications the settlement does virtually nothing to 
displace microsoft windows as the worlds leading OS. With Microsoft 
now under the microscope of the federal government its underhanded 
dealings against other OS competitors will be thwarted. However, 
since millions are already comfortable with Windows, why should they 
change? They wont. Microsoft windows will continue to be the 
dominant OS and through this system Microsoft can continue to 
manipulate and distribute any application they wish as was evident 
with their internet explorer browser. In order for Microsoft to be 
put in check one must go for the heart, and the heart of Microsoft 
is windows.



MTC-00027281

From: Gruetzner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    This comment is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 
the Tunney Act concerning the proposed settlement of the prosecution 
of Microsoft, Inc. (``Microsoft'') for violations of the 
Sherman Antitrust Act.
    I am a private consumer of computer hardware and software 
products. I own no stock nor have financial interest in Microsoft or 
in any of its competitors (exept as may or may not be held by mutual 
funds I have invested in).
    Microsoft has been found guilty of violating the Sherman 
Antitrust Act. However, the proposed settlement does not end the 
monopoly Microsoft has in operating systems, office applications, 
and internet applications. In addition, it does not deprive 
Microsoft of its gains achieved through its illegal practices.
    Any reasonable settlement must provide for the establishment of 
significant competition in operating systems, in office 
applications, and in internet applications. It must separate these 
three activities of Microsoft, and provide that any combination of 
Microsoft and non-Microsoft software, internet applications,and 
operating systems may be run at the consumer's discretion.
    The Justice Department should ensure that the court hold public 
proceedings under the Tunney Act which give citizens consumer 
groups, as well as Microsoft's competitiors and customers, an equal 
opportunity to participate.
    Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
    James K. Gruetzner
    c/o 9407 Shoshone NE
    Albuqueruqe, NM 87111
    (505) 844-9508



MTC-00027282

From: ronsumner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case should be 
approved by the Court. It is my opinion the agreement appropriately 
safeguards against future antitrust violations. I believe the 
continuing of this case through trial will not result in any better 
of a result than what is provided for by the settlement. The 
settlement will impose numerous obligations on Microsoft. Microsoft 
will be required to disclose portions of its code to its 
competitors. They will also grant computer manufactures the right to 
configure Windows in such a way that it will be easier to run non-
Microsoft programs while running Windows.
    These changes will result in restored competition. If steps are 
taken to restore competition, there should be no further prosecution 
of the antitrust case.
    Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Ron & Joanne Hyland
    15114 74th Street E.
    Sumner, Washington 98390



MTC-00027283

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:34pm
Subject: MicroSoft proposed settlement
    My opinion of this proposed settlement is that MicroSoft wins 
again with very little or no punishment for the monopoly that they 
have been convicted. I see no long lasting effect by instituting 
this settlement and they will be free to continue the monopoly with 
little interference from the government. I would strongly urge a 
punishment with some real teeth in it that would limit their ability 
to continue business in the same way they have gotten away with for 
years.
    Doyle Rogers
    Terrebonne Or



MTC-00027284

From: --
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft Settlement.
    My name is Dong hyub Cho. I would like to talk about my opinion 
with Microsoft and U.S. Microsofts monopolized most of the world 
market, thus many problem are generated. The big problem that we can 
consider is that a right of consumers who want to choose their taste 
of verity things was lost by Microsofts.
    Second, as Microsofts sells their product with explore and media 
player, products such as internet surfing and multimedia ones made 
by other companies sustain a loss. By according to EU's opinion, 
intentionally Microsofts is designed not to work software made by 
other company in Window products well, so Microsofts limited 
competition with others.
    Last, by according to security professor who works at IT, 
personal information in computer can be hacked easily. Whenever many 
people surf internet, usually they use Explore program in windows. 
If the cookies that contain personal information were stolen away, 
cracker can steal someone's money from bank.
    Even though, at the beginning time, when window 3.0 appeared in 
the world, there are other O/S that people can use in their

[[Page 27974]]

computer, the reason Why Microsofts can monopolize their field is 
simple. The answer, why Windows products are used by many people is 
that those are good and easy for public.
    But nowadays, we lost our right to choose O/S and there are some 
problems which I mention above, so I think that huge dinosaur, 
Microsofts must be divided, as if AT&T was divided. I understand 
that in these days, U.S. economy is not good and if Microsofts is 
divided, there are no advantages to help for economy to be active; 
however viewed in long time, it will be good for both of the public 
and economy. Through many competitions with companies, the public 
can use their program with cheap and good quality.
    I think that if O/S such as LINUX or P/S elevate their program 
for the public to approach more easily and Microsofts is divided 
with, naturally both of the public to use computer and government 
can find solution and live with good computer communicate life.



MTC-00027285

From: John Gilmore
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/27/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think the proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust 
litigation is a travesty of justice.
    Whether or not Congress defines ``being too 
successful'' as a crime, it is clear that there are MANY, MANY 
things that Microsoft did that were crimes--such as threatening 
DEC with cancellation of their Windows license if they released a 
competing product. Such as signing a contract with Sun that said 
they'd only release compatible Java products, then deliberately 
breaking the compatability in their release. Such as their current 
nuisance suit against competing OS vendor Lindows, when there are 
hundreds of products that even include the literal word 
``Windows'', about which Microsoft hasn't complained. They 
continue to use their OS monopoly as a way to leverage themselves 
into other businesses, such as file sharing, credential storage, and 
digital rights management.
    Even the actions that they propose to take to 
``remedy'' their past monopolistic acts are 
monstrous--such as ``giving away'' millions of copies 
of (zero marginal cost) software to schools, so that even more 
students can be trapped into the Microsoft monopoly at even younger 
ages.
    The proposed settlement should be REJECTED. The honest 
prosecutors, if there are any left on the case, should stall the 
case until a non-corrupt Presidential administration is in office 
and they can resume the case. ``The fix is in'' in this 
Administration.
    John Gilmore



MTC-00027286

From: Aaron Zinman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am horrified at the lack of judgement on the real methods of 
pursuing a monopoly that the judgement does not address. While the 
judgement does require middleware to be removable from Windows, it 
does not take into account the fact that your average user will not 
do that. The average user will use what is installed in their 
computer, which is all proprietary software. Microsoft is attempting 
to levy its relationship on all types of file formats, wether that 
be using ActiveX instead of Java, which only works in Windows, 
windows media formats, which barely work on the mac side and have no 
other ports, or Microsoft Office documents that have file format 
standards that can be quite difficult to import/export with 100% 
accuracy. On the networking side, they force horrible/insecure 
products with all non-documented proprietary protocols upon networks 
creating a nightmare for network administrators to truly create a 
cross-platform environment without having large amounts of 
``Microsoft Solutions''. Now with .NET, they are going to 
attempt to force everyone to pay yearly licenses for software, a 
practice never heard of before, to access products over the web to 
make it seem open; however, in the end the addition of Windows-only 
based controls and support will force people to again use Windows.
    I hope that the American justice system will actually withhold 
its principle values and see the modern day Standard Oil to its 
proper place.
    Aaron Zinman
    618 Sausalito Blvd
    Sausalito, CA 94965



MTC-00027287

From: neal uhlich
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/27/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Neal Uhlich
120 Canterbury Dr
Carrollton, Ga 30117
January 27, 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,
    Neal Uhlich



MTC-00027288

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please read the attached letter.
2626 E Broad Street
Bexley, OH 43209
January 27, 2002
AttorneyGeneral John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington,DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr.Ashcroft:
    We are writing this letter to convey our outlook on the suit 
against Microsoft. We believe that the suit has put a shroud over 
the free-market. The settlement that was reached between Microsoft 
and the Justice Department will provide the consumers with more 
choices and let them decide what the best product is.
    This settlement was arrived at after extensive negotiations. 
Allowing further litigation will mean the waste of time and money 
invested in drafting the agreement. The settlement guides Microsoft 
to provide its competitors with information regarding the 
development of its products. Microsoft has also agreed not to 
retaliate against computer makers that may ship software that would 
compete with its Window operating system. We urge you to put an end 
to this costly litigation, as the taxpayer cannot continue to afford 
such expenditures. It is strongly suggested that you move to 
finalize the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Edward & Marilynn Hilt



MTC-00027289

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    Marie Barattucci
    1756 Conifer Avenue
    Kissimmee, FL 34758

[[Page 27975]]



MTC-00027290

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings
    I feel the proposed settlement is tough but fair. I feel the 
company is being penalized for being creative and successful, but I 
certainly welcome competitive creativity when, where and if 
available. As a computer user my world has been greatly expanded due 
to programming available to me, a 59 year old.
    Obviously this has made for geometric growth in our economy as 
well. Let's hope this agreement does not send us backwards but opens 
new doors for more users.
    Thank You,
    Jimmy Sober
    366 S Edward St.
    Decatur, IL 62522



MTC-00027291

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    Robert Keagy
    320 Greenfield Drive
    McMurray, PA 15317



MTC-00027292

From: Ted Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am concerned about the settlements being discussed in the 
Microsoft Anti-trust case. Every settlement offer I've seen seems to 
forget that every court ruling has agreed that Microsoft is a 
monopoly and abused it's monopoly power. This letter is my attempt 
to classify what I think the settlement agreement should contain. I 
can't stress how lacking I find the current settlement plan. As a 
computer professional, the current settlement will do nothing but 
harm the current market and stifle any future innovation.
    Relying upon conduct remedies without strict enforcement will 
not work. This has been tried with Microsoft before and it didn't 
work. Microsoft's statements and actions underscore that they do not 
agree with the courts ruling and will subvert it by any means 
necessary. The court must supervise Microsoft closely and have 
strict penalties for non-compliance. Microsoft should have no 
control over this oversight. The current settlement offer is filled 
with loopholes that Microsoft will exploit at every available 
opportunity.
    Mostly I think the settlement should focus on defusing the power 
the Microsoft abused, encouraging competition, and forcing Microsoft 
to make amends for it's past deeds.
    I propose that remedies should affect Microsoft in the main 
ways: --divest non-core parts of Microsoft that are parts of 
attempts to monopolize new markets. (Pocket PC, WinCE, XBox, 
Microsoft Games). --adjust Microsoft's contracts with Original 
Equipment Manufacturers (OEM). have Microsoft divulge information 
needed for competition products to interoperate with Microsoft 
Products. That is, bring competition into the market place. Fines 
paid to a non-profit association to encourage open source 
development. Divest non-core MS Assets
    Formost, I believe that the rulings should not force a full 
scale breakup of Microsoft. Divulging portions of Microsoft that 
aren't core business but are attempts to gain further control and 
penetration in new markets should be considered. I would consider 
the X-Box gaming console, and Pocket PC (WinCE), and Microsoft Games 
as prime targets for divesting. They are not part of the core 
business so will not harm Microsoft. By removing these ventures from 
direct Microsoft control, they can be left to sink or swim on their 
own merits, as free markets are supposed to operate.
    Even so, this is the least of the remedies I propose. If the 
other remedies are enacted, the market might be able to correct for 
Microsoft's deep pockets. OEM Remedies
    The primary remedy must include freeing Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) from Microsoft's control. Everyone has heard of 
the main OEM's, Dell, Gateway, IBM, Compaq, but this list includes 
the multitude of small shops that build custom PCs.
    The primary tool that Microsoft used to control OEMs was 
altering the price of Windows. If an OEM didn't follow the Microsoft 
line, Microsoft would raise it's price for Windows for that OEM. 
Since OEMs can't complete without Windows, raising the price could 
directly hurt their profits and marketshare. To couter this, 
Microsoft should be forced to use unified pricing. The cost of 
Windows should be based upon the volume sold and on nothing else. 
Every OEM could see the price and it would be the same for any given 
level of volume. If you sold 1 million copies of Windows the cost is 
$x. If you sell 5 million the price might be less, but it's the same 
for every OEM who sells 5 million copies. Furthermore, Microsoft 
requires that it's 0EMs support the copies they sell. Since this is 
the case, Microsoft's agrument that it needs to control ``first 
boot'' (the users first experience with Windows when they boot 
a new machine) is a fallacy. Especially since Microsoft no longer 
allows full install disks to be distributed with new machines (users 
can't reinstall Microsoft Widows from nothing, they can only restore 
the factory default settings). If Microsoft does not support the 
user, then it no longer needs to control first boot. The remedy 
should allow the OEM to do anything to their installed copy of 
Windows that an end user can do.
    This power to ``do anything an end user could do'' 
must not be limited. It must specifically include the following 
powers, so Microsoft can not try subvert the language of the ruling 
as it did it's earlier consent decree. --OEMS can create 
Multiple Boot machines, specicially allowing other 0S's to be 
installed as the default. --OEMS can remove/add icons from the 
desktop --OEMS can remove/install programs as well as 
components of Windows. Simply put, an OEM should be able to 
configure Microsoft Windows in any way open to an educated consumer.
    ``Multiple Boot'' should be expanded upon, since due 
to Microsoft, few outside the computer profession have heard of it. 
There are other Operating Systems (OS) for Intel compatible 
machines. An experienced user can configure a machine so that it has 
multiple operating systems and choose which one to run when the 
machine starts up, with OS chosen as the default (the one that will 
boot if no choice is made). The strongest OS competitor to Microsoft 
is GNU/Linux, an open source operating system. The cost of GNU/Linux 
is zero, it's produced by thousands of volunteers instead of a 
corporation.
    Installing Linux is easy for an educated user, harder for a 
novice users. It's difficult to get Windows and Linux to co-exist on 
machine, the process is daunting to normal users. For experienced 
users (an OEM) it's easy. Once installed, it's easy to switch back 
and forth from one Operating System to another by a simple reboot. 
Right now no OEM sells a dual-boot Linux/Windows computer. No OEM 
offers a dual boot Linux/Microsoft Windows computer because 
Microsoft's contract with them specifically forbids this. A machine 
that has Windows on it can not have any other visibile Operating 
System, that is no way to choose the other operating system. This 
clause must be removed as it's a primary method that Microsoft uses 
to maintain its monopoly. If users will not buy machines w/o 
Windows, but would buy machines that easily allowed them to switch 
from Windows and another operating system, they should be allowed 
this choice. Instead, Microsoft abuses it's position to ensure that 
this option is never given to consumers.
    Similarly, Microsoft uses it's doctrine of ``First 
boot'' as part of it's plans to move into new markets. By 
removing Microsoft's control of first boot, and giving it to 
multiple OEMs to control, the market can begin to correct for 
Microsoft's past abuse. The best thing about this is that control is 
moved outside Microsoft into multiple hands and the government 
doesn't have to dictate what can and can not go on the desktop. 
Microsoft's scare tactics about fracturing the marketplace with non-
compliant versions of Windows is just that: a scare tactic.
    Open Information
    There should be enough open information for a programmer to 
write programs which

[[Page 27976]]

read/write Microsoft file formats and communicate with Microsoft 
products. That is, be able to ensure that they can create a product 
that can compete and communicate with Microsoft's Products. I do not 
mean, as has been suggested by some, that Microsoft should be forced 
to move it's source code into the public domain. Instead, enough 
information would be divulged for others to write programs which 
compete with MS products.
    To encourage competition, Microsoft should be forced to fully 
and openly specify any protocol used to comunicate with Microsoft 
products. The following should be fully specified:
--Any and All File Formats used by any Microsoft Product. 
Specifically include Microsoft Office.
--Document all Application Programing Interfaces (API). Any API 
used by a Microsoft product must be documented. Products can have 
hidden internal APIs used only by that specific program. Microsoft 
Windows XP can have hidden APIs, but they can only be used by 
Microsoft Windows XP. If a separate product (Microsoft Office, 
Microsoft IIS, etc) uses the API then it must be fully documented. 
Care must be taken to describe product. A simple definition is if 
it's available for sale individually it's a product, even if it's 
offered in a bundle with other products. Microsoft Word is a product 
even though it's part of Microsoft Office as well. If a something is 
offered as an optional install, then it's a separate product. If 
Microsoft currently has part of their website specifically targeted 
towards it, then it's most likely a separate product.
--All communication protocols must be documented. This includes 
protocols for networking (including security protocols for 
authenticating with the network), interapplication communication, 
and any other method that two individual Microsoft products 
communicate with each other. (Any protocol that one licensed copy of 
Microsoft Windows XP uses to communicate with another copy must be 
fully documented.) Note, these remedies do not include Microsoft 
having to release any source codes. They do enable other companies 
to freely products that compete with Microsoft. Microsoft can still 
compete on pricing, quality, and innovation. Microsoft even gets the 
head start as they only have to release the specification when the 
release a product, so Microsoft gets a head start (and has an 
enormous head start with all it's current programs). Furthermore, 
this specification is not an onerous burden. It should be part of 
Microsoft's existing engineering discipline. Much of this data is 
already available, but it's currently licensed so that you cannot 
use the information to create products that compete with Microsoft.
    After documenting, if a shipping Microsoft product does not 
conform to the specification Microsoft will have a month to do one 
of the following: --amend the specification so the given 
product confroms to the new specification. --release an update 
to the product so that it conforms. --remove the product from 
sale until such time as it conforms to the specification.
    Remember, Microsoft writes the specifications in the first 
place, there should be no reason it's products won't comply with 
their own specifications.
    If Microsoft does not comply, then the court should take strict 
actions for non-compliance. The first action should be a large fine. 
But, for extreme cases, in the settlement should give the court the 
option to take the complete source code of the given product and 
release it into the public domain. If Microsoft claims that it 
cannot factor out the code for the product for some reason, it 
should be forced to open all codes until the given product is fully 
specified. Again, this threat should only be used if Microsoft is 
found non-compliant with their own specifications and fails to fix 
them after initial fines. The heavy hand hiding behind the agreement 
will ensure Microsoft's compliance.
    Furthermore, any patent that Microsoft has that covers any part 
of the released specification must be opened into the public domain. 
Microsoft has stated that this is unacceptable, but anything less is 
not an acceptable remedy from the court. Patents are not a major 
factor in the computer industry, as Software patents weren't even 
legal until past 1992. Some reading on ``patent abuse'' 
will show there is wide-spread support for banning computer patents 
in the industry. This is a narrowly defined opening of specific 
patents though, not of every Microsoft patent. Only those needed for 
to implement a given specification would be opened. Otherwise, the 
court risks having Microsoft open it's specification only to find 
that it's useless as no one can implement them due to patent issues.
    Security should not be a reason that Microsoft can not reveal a 
specification, even in our current climate. Security that relies 
upon hiding protocols does not work, it's referred in the security 
community to as ``Security through Obscurity''. Simply 
put, it relies upon others not figuring out how you did something as 
an essential component of security. Someone eventually figures out 
how the system works, and then breaks it. No matter how well done, a 
bad design can be exploited. In an open process, focus is put on 
making the security design sound. This is then implemented. Some 
implementations even give out full source code so any implementation 
mistakes can be corrected. A survey (avoiding Microsoft sources but 
focusing on the security community) will find that OpenBSD, Linux, 
and Apache have a much better security record than Microsoft 
Products despite having all their source codes freely available.
    But, most importantly in today's current world, multiple 
implementations are stronger. That is, if everyone uses the same 
security tools, it's much easier to exploit them. In biology, a 
genetically diverse population is more resistant to disease. If 
there are multiple instances of Microsoft's security design, some 
will be resistant to exploitation. This makes all computers more 
secure.
    Fines
    There is little doubt that Microsoft's current net worth is 
largely due to it's monopoly. As such the fines should be of the 
same order. This poses a sticky problem for the court to administer 
a multi-billion dollar fine.
    Formost, since Microsoft uses this ``warchest'' to 
continue it's conquest of it's current markets and extend into new 
ones, their bank account must be depleted. To avoid the Government 
administering such a large fine, Microsoft should be ordered to pay 
out a large percentage of it's case reserves to it's shareholders. 
This is quite fair, the shareholders loose no value and suffer no 
harm. At the same time, Microsoft looses the ability to buy it's way 
into new markets and to buy out it's competition.
    At the same time, by it's abusive tactics Microsoft did harm the 
market. So it should be forced to pay some minor restitution to the 
defendents listed in the case. This part is lacking in the current 
agreement.
    But, simple restitution is not enough due to the widespread 
nature of Microsoft's abusive actions. It should be forced to by a 
billion dollars into a fund which will promote open source 
development. This will encourage development of software which 
competes with Microsoft but doesn't support any one company 
directly. By earmarking some of these funds to the development of 
educational software it could also help address a national need at 
the same time. Schools would get access to free high quality 
software that could be modified as suits them. The fund should 
stipulate that software written is released under a currently 
approved open source license. While the fund should support software 
written for Microsoft Windows, it should require that any software 
written for Windows also support some other operating system. The 
converse should not be true, if the software is written for Linux, 
Mac OS X, Mac OS 9, or any other non-microsoft operating system, it 
should not be required to support Microsoft Windows. This last fine 
will encourage competition in the marketplace and help ensure that 
Microsoft's hold on. the market diminishes.



MTC-00027293

From: Dorianne L Feign
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    I think that the government has been too easy on Microsoft, 
especially since the new administration took over.
    I have been in the computer business since 1949 and have never 
seen such a devastating monopoly as Microsoft in this or any 
business. They have stifled competition by more than one means. 
Today, for example, I went to look for computers for some of my 
clients and couldn't find ANY personal computers that were sold 
WITHOUT Windows XP (which is insidious, invasive software) and 
either Microsoft Office or Microsoft Works ``bundled'' 
with the computer. If these are forced on the purchaser, what normal 
buyer would go out and buy any competitive software when the 
Microsoft ``junque'' is included ``FREE!''. What 
software developer could fight that? There are only a few specialty 
applications that are sold by any company other than

[[Page 27977]]

Microsoft, and I can see Microsoft inching up on them also.
    If we don't do something to encourage other software developers, 
the only choice other than Microsoft will be with the Apple family 
of computers. And even there, Microsoft is creeping in.
    Please take care of Microsoft properly before we have only 
Microsoft software in the whole world!!!
    Dr. David Feign
    Computer Systems Consultant
    [email protected]



MTC-00027294

From: Jason Purdy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I would like to add my voice to the hopefully growing dissent of 
the upcoming Microsoft Settlement and how it would benefit Microsoft 
more than the good of the public. Microsoft has historically 
demonstrated monopolistic tendencies and the proposed settlement is 
at best, a slap on the wrist and is not the lesson they need to open 
the ``playing field'' for current and future competitors 
in the technology arena.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Kind Regards,
    Jason Purdy
    Chief Technologist, Journalistic, Inc.
    Cary, NC



MTC-00027295

From: Jay Llewellyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jay Llewellyn
323 Highland Farm Road
West Chester, PA 19382
[email protected]
610-738-8476
January 31,2002
    Dear sir or madam:
    As a computer user I am an interested party to the current anti-
trust settlement, and I am submitting comments an proposed actions 
against Microsoft, which I believe will correct the current 
situation. My opinions, based on 16 years of industry experience, 
which include being the former Global Technical Account manager for 
such PC OEM's as IBM, Digital Equipment, now part of Compaq, Unisys, 
and Gateway 2000 during my employment by Netscape from April 1996 
through December 1998.
    Currently I am employed by The Vanguard Group as the Chief 
Architect for Advanced technology, I do not represent The Vanguard 
Group for the purpose of this letter, but I .mention my employment 
as a reference for my overall credibility. During my employment by 
The Vanguard Group have created a partnership with Microsoft and 
have worked closely on the development of products and I've been 
quoted by Microsoft a number of times, http://www.microsoft.com/
presspass/press/2001/MarO1/03- 05SupportPR.asp. I mention my 
relationship with Microsoft to demonstrate that as an former 
Netscape employee I am not motivated by anything other than 
achieving a fair and even playing field.
    I not only bring an insider perspective on the inner-workings of 
the PC OEM business, the software industry in general, and the 
average consumer. I am also aware of the issues faced by a large 
organization which spends a significant amount of money buying PC's 
and associated software for PC's. I am confident that I bring a 
unique and insightful position on the current situation. I have 
spent a considerable amount of time over the last five years 
analyzing the existing situation, and have arrived at what I 
believe, are the most compact, understandable, balanced, and 
enforceable set of restrictions possible. My goal is not to cripple 
Microsoft or impose unreasonable restraint, but merely to level the 
playing field. These restrictions are organized in three groups, the 
first group address the issues of bundling products with the 
operating system, the second group is focused on the bundling of 
products with sale of personal computers, and the third group 
concerns itself with the publishing of Windows API's.
    Restrictions with the Operating Systems for bundling, un-
bundling and free The first restriction placed on Microsoft would 
prevent them from simultaneously bundling products into any or all 
of their operating systems, and un-bundling the same product by 
allowing it to be downloaded, or distributed free of charge. 
Microsoft is retroactively bundling products with all previous 
versions of their operating system when they allow bundled products 
to be distributed free of charge. The simultaneous act of both 
bundling and un-bundling of products creates an unfair advantage 
based on their monopoly position with operating systems for personal 
computers. Unless this practice is prevented, it will be impossible, 
to level the playing field for competitors. Any product from a 
competitor that is deemed a threat to an existing Microsoft product, 
or to the operating system itself, can easily be eliminated by the 
simple action of bundling a similar Microsoft product into the 
operating systems and allowing the product to be downloaded free of 
charge for those people who don't have the latest version of the 
operating system.
    As an example, if Microsoft were to bundle Microsoft Money into 
versions of the Windows operating system and then made the product 
free to download for everyone who had an older version of Windows it 
would overnight change the market share for Microsoft Money and it's 
competing product Quicken from Intuit. How many people would be 
inclined to purchase Quicken from Intuit at a list price of $49.99, 
when Microsoft Money is available free? How long would Intuit be 
able to compete with free, and how long after the demise of Intuit 
would Microsoft stop aggressively updating the product, or worse 
start charging for updated tax code information, something that 
Microsoft was willing to give away when it had competition?
    The second restriction placed on Microsoft would prevent the 
distribution any product free of charge. Because of the Microsoft 
monopoly for PC operating systems the free of charge distribution is 
really an implied contract for the bundling of products with the 
operating system both in the future and retroactively. The implied 
bundling would drive competition out of the market, and once 
competition is s driven from the market Microsoft is free to charge 
anything they chose.
    Microsoft has a choice for each and every new product they 
develop; should they bundled it with the next version of an OS, or 
should they sell it as a standalone product? Either way a Microsoft 
product is never available as a free download, except as a trial 
version or through an early access program, or a similar policy 
which Microsoft consistently enforces for all products, regardless 
of price. Retroactive bundling must be prevented.
    As an example of how these restriction would be applied, I'll 
demonstrate using a fictitious Microsoft product XYZ, and a 
fictitious Microsoft OS version ??, Microsoft develops a new product 
XYZ version 1.0. Microsoft must make a decision; do they bundle the 
product with the next variant of their operating system, or do they 
sell the product standalone now?
    Microsoft could not to bundle XYZ 1.0 with a version of an 
operating systems which had been available prior to the introduction 
of XYZ 1.0, retroactive bundling is forbidden, in any way shape or 
form. Microsoft has every right to bundle XYZ version 1.0 with OS 
version ??, but once the product is bundled with the OS it is not 
available separately as a freely available download, it is not 
allowed to be included on CD-ROM's that are provided with computer 
books. It is bundled with OS version ??, and the only way that XYZ 
version 1.0 is available is for the consumer to buy OS version ??, 
or an upgrade to version ??. Normal bug fixes, and minor updates 
would be allowed to the product, via free download, or low cost CD 
distribution., which is how it is accomplished today. If Microsoft 
chose to upgrade XYZ to version 2.0 the only way that Microsoft 
could distribute XYZ version 2.0 is with the next version of OS 
version ??, and the only way that the consumer could receive version 
2.0 of XYZ would be through the new purchase of new OS version ?? 
that has XYZ 2.0 bundled, or a purchased upgrade for OS version ??.
    If Microsoft chose not to bundle XYZ version 1.0 with an 
operating system, then Microsoft would sell XYZ as a standalone 
product. Time limited, or feature restricted versions could be 
available via download, or possibly included with CD-ROM's included 
with books, but the full version must be purchased. If Microsoft 
chose to upgrade XYZ to version 2.0 the consumer could only receive 
XYZ version 2.0 one of three ways, either through a paid upgrade to 
the product, purchasing the new version, or purchasing a 
subscription to the product, but version 2.0, or the upgrade to 
version 2.0 would never be available via free download. Since 
Microsoft has many different operating system variants, they could 
choose too bundle XYZ 1.0 with one or more of their operating 
systems, but exclude XYZ 1.0 on other operating systems.
    The only way that XYZ would be available for the excluded 
operating systems would be via purchase of the standalone product. 
The product would never be available free of charge for the excluded 
operating systems.

[[Page 27978]]

Upgrades would behave has explained previously, for both the bundled 
and standalone products.
    This remedy would allow Microsoft to Innovate, but it would not 
allow their products to gain dominant market share over time without 
competing on either price, or features. The act of bundling and un-
bundling eliminates all distribution barriers for Microsoft, this is 
an unfair advantage and must be eliminated. Microsoft exploited this 
advantage with Internet Explorer, and they could exploit it again at 
any time with any product. This remedy would level the playing field 
for companies competing with Microsoft, it is simple to understand 
and very easy to enforce, without the need for an oversight 
committee. The net effect would prevent Microsoft from gaining an 
unfair advantage for other product segments via their operating 
system monopoly. Personal computer sales restrictions
    The restrictions on the bundling of operating system or 
standalone products with the purchase of a personal computer are 
simple to understand and very easy to enforce, without the need for 
an oversight ``committee, and the restrictions in no way limit 
Microsoft's ability to innovate or sell any products. The 
restrictions are outlined below:
    No Microsoft product, that is operating system or standalone 
product, can be automatically included with the purchase of a 
personal computer, all Microsoft products are consumer optional 
purchases. No Microsoft product can automatically be included with 
the purchase of any other Microsoft product, free of charge or not. 
All Microsoft products sold by PC OEM's cannot differ from retail 
versions, including but not limited to: documentation, installation 
methods, distribution medium, etc. Specifically the version of 
operating systems purchased by the consumer is a limited copied for 
a particular configuration, vendor, or situation. All prices for 
Microsoft products, sold by PC OEM's will have a reasonable cost, 
meaning not excessively cheap relative to list price. Microsoft 
cannot finance the sale of Microsoft products through other means.
    No Microsoft product can be offered with the purchase of 
personal computer as a zero cost option, unless as a limited time 
offer, as a rebate, or as a special deal.
    All Microsoft products when selected for purchased by a consumer 
with a new computer will have a individual line item, it will also 
have a non-zero, and reasonable cost, unless as a limited time 
offer, as a rebate, or as a special deal Microsoft cannot dictate 
what version of their operating systems are available for sale with 
a personal computer, the consumer will make that optional selection 
from the versions offered by the PC OEM. Microsoft cannot restrict 
the versions of their operating systems available to PC OEM's, if 
the OS is available for sale, PC OEM's will have the option to sell 
it with their computers. Microsoft cannot influence or incent PC 
OEM's to favor the sale of a particular operating system version. 
Once a consumer has selected a Microsoft product it can be 
customized in any way by the PC OEM, via direction from the 
consumer. The PC OEM will be acting as an agent of the consumer, not 
as an agent of Microsoft. Which means that a customer can select the 
default Microsoft installation, or choose a customized version 
offered by the PC OEM, or create their own customized version, if 
offered by the PC OEM, of course additional cost may be incurred by 
the consumer for exercising this choice.
    Microsoft shall publish ALL API's for all their Operating 
Systems. Because Microsoft owns a monopoly in PC operating systems 
they can create unfair advantages for their standalone products by 
using features of the operating system known only to Microsoft. 
Punishment
    Punishment for violation of any restrictions will be a dollar 
amount equal to the gross revenue generated by the sale of any and 
all product that that fail to comply, from the time Microsoft is in 
violation until the situation is remedied. The punishment is fair 
considering Microsoft has profited unfairly at the expense of 
others, and has accumulated an enormous amount of cash because of 
this unfair profiteering. A severe penalty is also incentive for 
compliance. Final Thoughts
    Unless the distribution methods that Microsoft currently enjoys 
are changed, and I'm confident that the changes I have outlined are 
the most fair and succinct, Microsoft will be able to overrun any 
product at any time simply by declaring a similar Microsoft product 
bundled with the OS and allowing it to be downloaded free of charge. 
Retroactive bundling, and the distribution of products free of 
charge must be prevented. The restrictions outlined would not 
require the appointment of an oversight committee.
    Any solution that is more complicated would be unfair to 
Microsoft, it would be impossible for Microsoft to conduct business 
if they are scrutinized by an oversight committee.
    The outlined changes would also help to strengthen the PC OEM's, 
a business sector which is in a dire state. The dire state of the PC 
OEM business has been created by Microsoft through their restrictive 
license and contract agreements. When a PC OEM is forced by 
Microsoft, under terms and conditions favorable to Microsoft, to 
include Microsoft products, this forced inclusion is really a cost 
for the PC OEM's, which they cannot pass on to the consumer. Under 
the new restrictions the real actual cost of Microsoft products 
would be reflected and the PC OEM's would have the chance to receive 
a fair and reasonable profit from the sale of Microsoft products 
with their computers. As an example the list price of Windows XP is 
$199, because of the volume that PC OEM's buy they may be able to 
achiever 60%, or greater, discount, some of which could be passed on 
the consumer, but the PC OEM would still make money on the sale of 
the Microsoft OS, and the consumer could pay less than list price. 
The PC OEM could also charge for the customization of the OS, which 
would have benefits for the OEM and the consumer.
    Microsoft has created an artificially low price for Microsoft 
products bundled with new computers through restrictive monopolistic 
practices. Protecting prices for consumer good would be short 
sighted in this case. It is true that there could be an increased 
cost for the consumer when buying a new computer, when a consumer 
chose to add Microsoft products, but the consumer would also have a 
choice to not pay the increased cost. Currently Microsoft dictates 
what is purchased and at what price.
    The consumer should have the choice, even if it means the choice 
might cost a little more.
    The outlined changes would also benefit large organizations 
which buy PC that have an OS bundled, but are then forced to buy 
enterprise OS licenses from Microsoft. This double dipping by 
Microsoft would be a welcome relief by large organizations, it would 
also clear up an extremely complex licensing situation, which is un-
necessary and only beneficial to Microsoft.. The restrictions that 
have been outlined would not impede Microsoft at all, in fact had 
this model been in place since the last consent decree levied 
against Microsoft, they would have made considerable more money on 
their operating system, and there would still be competition in the 
browser marketplace. For Internet Explorer alone, if Microsoft had 
not bundled that product with the OS they would have sold at least 
20 Million copies at $49.99 which means they would have made, an 
additional $1 Billion in profits. Microsoft should be forced to 
comply with these restriction immediately and for a period of not 
less than 8 years, where the restrictions and market conditions 
could be re-evaluated.
    Sincerely,
    Jay Llewellyn



MTC-00027296

From: Michael Pakovic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    First, let me state that I am not currently, nor have I even 
been, an employee of Microsoft, or any of its competitors. I have a 
Bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering, and I am presently the 
Lead Engineer on the S-3B Program for Computer Sciences Corp. My 
expertise is in operating system and application design..
    Listed below are a few of the major issues I have with the 
settlement.
    *Microsoft shouldn't have the right to appoint a representative 
to the Technical Committee (``TC''). This committee's 
responsibility is to ensure Microsoft's compliance with the 
Settlement, which resulted from their anti competitive business 
practices, and as such, should consist of three Plaintiff selected 
members.
    * Microsoft can continue to make OS API changes and provide them 
internally to their application developers long before they provide 
them to third party developers. As proposed in the settlement, the 
API information must be made public before the last BETA release of 
a new Windows Operating System Product. This conceivably might give 
third party developers a very short period of time (a day?) to 
analyze the API and develop software to take advantage of any new OS 
enhancements. This will put third party developers at a distinct 
disadvantage, and will continue the Application Barrier to Entry 
(``ABE'').

[[Page 27979]]

    * There are many loopholes in the settlement which will 
inevitably lead to further court proceedings. Microsoft has 
endeavored to stretch out the court proceedings as long as possible, 
and this agreement will allow them to continue with that practice.
    * Lastly, Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact found a large number 
of anti competitive practices, and the proposed settlement, while 
attempting to prevent future anti competitive behavior, does nothing 
to correct the unjust gains Microsoft has accrued as a result of 
their practices. Internet Explorer has almost totally displaced 
Netscape. Microsoft Office has almost totally displaced Word Perfect 
Office. Even with the publication of the Windows API's, no other 
Office suite will be able to compete with Office-- the user 
base is just to large. Only by giving Microsoft incentive to port 
their current applications to competing operating systems, will the 
ABE be removed.
    In conclusion, the only effective way to remove the ABE, and 
promote fair competition, is to separate Microsoft into two 
companies. An operating system company which will continue to 
produce the Windows
    Operating System, and an application company which will produce 
Office and Microsoft's other applications. This arrangement will 
remove the advantage Microsoft application developers have over 
their third party counterparts, and will give the application 
company incentive to port Microsoft applications to other operating 
systems. I recommend the proposed settlement be rejected, and that 
Judge Jackson's judgment be enforced.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Pakovic
    Lead Engineer, Computer Sciences Corp.



MTC-00027297

From: R. Kline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement with Microsoft will largely leave it's 
monopoly leverage intact, and therefore does not address the basic 
problem of allowing Microsoft to control prices, stifle competition, 
and drive or buy out any significant competition using the cash it 
has accumulated with monopolistic pricing. In order to address these 
problems Microsoft should be made to provide source code for its 
operating system to competitors, and all interfaces to the operation 
system should be made publicly available to prevent Microsoft from 
thereby making it difficult to impossible for competitors to cleanly 
access the operating system. Without these reforms, M$ will likely 
continue to leverage its current monopoly, gain control over more 
aspects of the Internet, and prevent the kind of innovation and 
price reduction that only comes from real competition.
    Robert Kline
    299-3B Gemini Drive
    Hillsborough, NJ 08844



MTC-00027298

From: Kenneth Arnold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express comments on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement, with expectations that it will be considered under the 
Tunney Act.
    As a user of many different operating systems, office 
productivity applications, and web browsers, including those 
distributed by Microsoft as well as those distributed with or 
without cost and with or without freedom to examine and improve 
internal workings (i.e. open source), I view Microsoft's current 
monopoly status as severely limiting the freedom to innovate of all 
other involved companies and independant developers.
    The Department of Justice has recognized this, but the proposed 
settlement does not, in my view, take sufficient action to alleviate 
Microsoft's stranglehold on the software market, restore the 
freedoms of competition and innovation to other developers, and 
provide remedy for the deep-seated damages already done my 
Microsoft's monopoly status.
    Specifically, as a US citizen and a user of computing technology 
in my daily work, I value freedom of choice. In the Microsoft case, 
this choice is the choice of what software I use to perform various 
tasks, what infrastructure software is used to allow other software 
to run, and what entity is in control of data both on my personal 
computer and on servers used to store and/or distribute content used 
on my computer, to name a few significant concerns. It is currently 
possible to operate a computer completely without Microsoft 
products, as I have done at times, but it can be exceedingly 
difficult, mainly due to Microsoft's monopoly on the rest of the 
market comprised of people and organizations with whom I interact. 
For example, a huge number of applications require the Win32 API in 
order to run. The Win32 API is currently only implemented in 
Microsoft Windows to a sufficient degree to run these programs 
usefully; there is little freedom of choice in running these 
applications in any operating system other than Windows. Essentially 
I am forced to use Windows in order to run any of those large number 
of programs which I may need, and the proposed settlement does 
nothing to alleviate this requirement. In essence, Microsoft 
currently dictates what products can and cannot be used on nearly 
all personal computers that are currently running Microsoft 
products. While this in itself is bad enough, what many analyists 
believe Microsoft is planning to do with its monopoly is still more 
disturbing. With its ``.NET'' initiative, it appears that 
Microsoft is beginning in its plan it move software to service-type 
use. The end result could be renting the ability to use software, 
with little practical restrictions on the degree of control 
Microsoft could exercise over the costs of such services and the 
monitoring or even controlling of what consumers are doing with 
these services. Though the proposed remedy is absolutely necessary, 
they are not sufficient without amendment to address concerns that I 
have only briefly and incompletely alluded to above.
    Thank you for your careful consideration my comments as well as 
those of many other citizens in this matter.
    Kenneth C. Arnold
    12652 Golden Oak Drive
    Ellicott City, MD 21042
    (410) 531-0856



MTC-00027299

From: Square Circle Consulting LLC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the Microsoft Settlement.
    Thank you for taking my comments,
    David Hanke, CEO
    Square Circle Consulting, LLC
    Solutions & Support for Macintosh



MTC-00027300

From: Nicki Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Please support the settlement recently 
reached between the US Dept. of Justice and Microsoft. It is my 
belief that this lawsuit should not have been launched against 
Microsoft and think it is now time to settle it so that this country 
and Microsoft can get back to business as usual. Microsoft 
developing software and the US government taking action on the 
economic situation we are in. Microsoft agreed to license Windows to 
the 20 largest computer makers on virtually identical terms and 
conditions. They have agreed to grant computer makers and software 
developers broad rights to configure Windows to remove Microsoft 
products and substitute competing, non-Microsoft products in their 
places. Netscape Navigator can be installed in place of Internet 
Explorer and AOL Instant Messenger in place of Windows Messenger. 
Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against computer makers and 
software developers who choose to do this. Microsoft also agreed not 
to enter into any agreements with other companies that would 
obligate them to exclusively distribute or promote Windows 
technology. I encourage you to accept the terms of the settlement so 
that Microsoft can continue developing innovative software.
    Sincerely,
    Mrs. Nicki Anderson,
    318 N.E. 161st.,
    Shoreline, WA 98155-5739.



MTC-00027301

From: Pat Dooley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I've been appalled by the vendetta against Microsoft. This has 
not been an action by dissatisfied consumers but rather an action 
instigated and financed by AOL, Sun and Oracle, Microsoft's whining 
competitors. The biggest losers so far have been the American 
economy and consumers. Enough already. Call off the lawyers and 
let's get back to business. If AOL and company really want to beat 
Microsoft in the marketplace, now's their chance. Bill Gates has bet 
the company on his .Net initiative and it will require the software 
industry to rethink everything. It opens the door for Oracle, Sun 
and AOL to offer cost-effective alternatives. Instead, it seems 
they'd rather resort to the courts.

[[Page 27980]]



MTC-00027302

From: ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft opinion
    Dear Sir's
    I don't feel that it is in the best interest of all of the users 
of Microsoft OS what the nine states have in mind is, that they are 
not in this fiasco with the consumer in mind at all, and we all know 
that there objective is the dollar bill. Who would benefit from all 
of this? certainly not the consumer.
    Microsoft is a great and innovative company and there products 
are of the highest quality. As a consumer, leave Microsoft alone.
    as ever
    Ray Appleton
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00027303

From: Terri Holsinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the US Dept of Justice.
    Please approve the terms of the settlement. I believe the terms 
are tough but they are reasonable and fair to all parties, and meet 
the ruling by the Court of Appeals, and represent the best 
opportunity for the industry to move forward. Thank you for allowing 
my opinion to be heard.
    Terri Holsinger,
    317/846-4187,
    Carmel, Indiana



MTC-00027304

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The U.S. economy, which depends on firms like Microsoft for the 
innovation necessary to bring about a technology revival.
    It's time to accept the agreement and allow Microsolft to move 
on the close this matter.
    Audrey Holm



MTC-00027305

From: Merle S. Insinga
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe that the proposed settlement of the antitrust 
case against Microsoft is adequate. Any penalty that is imposed on 
Microsoft must punish it for the illegal actions of which they were 
convicted, restore competition in the desktop operating system 
market, and prevent Windows XP or other new Microsoft products from 
using illegal means to continue to protect their monopoly and extend 
that monopoly to new markets. I do not see how this weak settlement 
will accomplish those requirements.
    For example, while the settlement would force Microsoft to 
describe and license it's APIs to competitors, it allows Microsoft 
itself to define what organizations qualify as competitors. Most 
importantly, it allows them to exclude non-profit or government 
organizations from receiving this information. By their own 
admission, they consider Linux and other open-source software to be 
a threat, so they would surely use this loophole to prevent this 
threat from getting this information and using it to make inroads 
against their monopoly.
    That is just one example of the many flaws in this proposed 
settlement. This proposed settlement must be replaced with a far, 
far stronger one that meets the requirements mentioned above and 
will have some real effect in the marketplace.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Merle S. Insinga
    New Hampshire



MTC-00027306

From: James Kilmartin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to let you know I support your efforts to settle 
the Microsoft suit. I think the settlement is a good compromise and 
is fair and equitable. I also think that the Nine state AGs pursuing 
more penalties are nothing more than a front for Microsoft 
competitors, and to allow them to prevail would be a grave error.
    I hope common sense prevails when the Judge renders her opinion.
    James Kilmartin
    Bethel, CT



MTC-00027307

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Trial
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I was recently reading up on the Microsoft trial and I am very 
happy with the way things went in the trial. When I first heard 
about the trial I was actually mildly disturbed. I did not believe 
the Microsoft Corporation to be a monopoly. To me they were just 
simply the better of all the software making corporations. Also, 
there aren?t many other companies that make software such as 
Microsoft Windows or Microsoft Office. However, I can definitely see 
why the lawsuit was filed in the first place. It seemed like 
Microsoft had virtually taken over control of software production. 
When you think about it, they basically are the only operating 
system that most average people can think of. However, the more 
knowledgeable person knows about other systems. UNIX, for example, 
is another operating system that is used. Not only do they have the 
more popular operating system, but Microsoft Office programs, such 
as Excel and Word, are all over as well. The settlement that was 
reached by the U.S. and Micro soft was both necessary and fair. I 
personally am very happy that the corporation didn?t break up. Such 
a breakup would probably set back the economy a couple of steps. I 
am really pleased that it didn?t go as far as to breakup the 
company.



MTC-00027308

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it would be better for all concerned if all parties 
would agree to the present proposels and not drag this lawsuit out 
any longer.
    Thank You,
    Lester D. Carter



MTC-00027310

From: Thomas A Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    Speaking as a member of ``The Public'', as in 
``The Public Interest'', it is my opinion that Microsoft 
has done far more for the Public Interest than against it. For what 
transgressions the may have had, I believe the presently agreed upon 
settlement is more than just compensation, and that Microsoft has 
been duly punished. Therefore, I strongly recommend that the case be 
closed, now, without further hearings. Further hearings would become 
harassment of Microsoft, and would not be in the Public Interest
    Sincerely, (signed)
    Thomas A Miller
    12902 Wheatland Rd
    Fairfax, VA 22033-5300



MTC-00027311

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a student of computer science, I have mixed feelings about 
this issue. Microsoft's control of the software industry was not 
obtained from doing anything illegal. If a company creates an 
operating system, they should have full control of what software can 
and cannot be functional in their own operating system. If it was 
not for Microsoft developing their operating systems, the companies 
which software is being hindered, would not have an OS to develop 
for in the first place. If these companies feel that Microsoft is 
not treating them fairly they can go and develop their own OS. 
Microsoft is the perfect example of capitalism at its finest. 
Microsoft's business is Microsoft's business. No one is forcing 
millions to purchase any Microsoft products. There are several 
alertnative operating system, many of which can be obtained free 
from the internet. From my personal computing experience, I feel 
that Microsoft's products are lacking. I currently use both 
Microsoft and non-Microsoft operating systems and it suit es me 
fine. If further development in computer software is truly being 
hindered by Microsoft, the foundations of capitalism will lead to 
the downfall of Microsoft.



MTC-00027312

From: J Marvin Klopstad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the U.S. Government is unfair In this case. The 
whole thing should be dropped if Netscape wants to compete let them 
build a better mouse trap.I think what Microsoft charges for its 
software is fair. Does the C.E.O. of Netscape & A.O.L. give as 
much money to schools and etc as Microsoft I dont think so. The 
stockholders and the

[[Page 27981]]

consumers are the losers and have been severely damaged by this law 
suite. I think that Netscape & A.O.L. are just jealous. The 
Government lawyers are just trying to make a name for themselves. 
Anybody that thinks the breakup of A.T.&T. Has benefited any one 
is a Fruit Cake, my phone bill tripled, the service is poor at best 
and the Co. is in shambles. The DoJ attorney Joel Kline stated on 
T.V. that the breakup of A.T.&T. brought us the Touch Tone Phone 
he does not know what he is talking about either, we had the Touch 
Tone Phones before 1972 and at least a type of mechanical version of 
Touch Tone was installed prior to 1950 only used by long distance 
Operators. The DoJ should accept Microsoft's good faith settlement 
and the government could get on with better and more important 
things.
    Thank You
    J. Marvin Klopstad



MTC-00027313

From: Rodney M. Chun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
FROM: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Rodney M. Chun
1663 Kentfield Avenue
Redwood City, CA 94061
    To the Honorable Court and the U.S. Department of Justice:
    As a concerned citizen, a professional economist, and a database 
developer, I feel compelled to submit the following comment on the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment (RPFJ) issued November 6, 2001 in 
the case of United States v. Microsoft Corp. I strongly believe that 
the RPFJ as it now stands is not in the ``public 
interest'' due to the gaping loopholes and imprecisions that 
even an individual not trained in law, such as myself, can identify.
    Let me begin with a simple statement of fact: A lower court has 
found, and an appellate court has concurred that Microsoft has 
violated antitrust laws by undertaking illegal actions which have 
impeded effective competition against it. The purpose of the RPFJ is 
to provide remedies for these transgressions, and most importantly, 
to inhibit Microsoft from engaging in future activities which would 
serve to preserve its monopoly in operating systems.
    The RPFJ contains such imprecise language that one can only 
wonder if it was purposely crafted to furnish Microsoft exploitable 
loopholes. While the list that follows is far from exhaustive, I 
feel it summarizes some of the shortcomings, omissions, and 
definitional problems which render the RPFJ an inappropriate remedy 
for the harm Microsoft has done to the public and an ineffective 
deterrent to future Microsoft offenses. Specific references to 
sections of the RPFJ are given in parenthesis.
    1. The RPFJ does not include all of the conduct the court found 
to be in violation of antitrust laws. In particular, it does not 
address the issue of commingling of middleware code with the 
underlying operating system.
    2. The RPFJ gives Microsoft the sole discretion over the 
definition of the ``Windows Operating System'' (VI.U). 
This oversight combined with the previous point essentially gives 
Microsoft every incentive to embed middleware code, such as the 
Internet Explorer, into the ``operating system'' and 
thereby evade all restrictions imposed on its middleware products.
    3. The RPFJ's definition of ``application programming 
interface'' (API) is unorthodox and restrictive. Typically an 
API is the interface between an application program and the 
operating system. Yet the RPFJ (VI.A) defines an API to be only 
those interfaces used by Microsoft Middleware. There are over 13,000 
API ``hooks'' into the Windows Operating System, of which 
only a fraction is actually used by Microsoft Middleware. Hence, any 
directives to make API's (as defined by the RPFJ) public, 
potentially excludes the release of information regarding other 
useful Windows OS APIs--the lack of which could essentially 
make an ISV's product uncompetitive with a similar Microsoft 
product. Microsoft has already used this informational asymmetry to 
its advantage in the past (see Finding of Fact, 90, 91) and there is 
no reason to believe that it would refrain from using this ploy to 
illegally preserve its monopoly in the future.
    4. The RPFJ's definition (VI.K) of ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product'' essentially consists of Internet Explorer, Microsoft 
Java, Window Media Player, Windows Messenger, and Outlook Express. 
This list is grossly incomplete if one considers middleware to be 
any application software that itself presents a set of APIs that 
allow users the ability to write new applications without reference 
to the underlying operating system. For instance, one can write 
database applications using Microsoft Access and Visual Basic for 
Applications (VBA) without ever using a native Windows OS API. This 
applies to the entire Microsoft Office family of programs. 
Furthermore, I find it peculiar that Outlook Express is listed while 
Outlook (the full-featured version of Outlook Express) is omitted. 
Furthermore, Microsoft's ``.NET'' system--seen by 
most as a Microsoft version of Sun's Java--is also noticeably 
omitted.
    5. The RPFJ gives Microsoft the explicit right to continually 
and automatically persuade end users to revert back to Microsoft 
middleware, after 14 days, in the event that a 3rd party application 
has been installed. As an end user of Microsoft Windows, I do not 
welcome a daily barrage of dialog boxes begging me to favor 
Microsoft products over my preferred alternative. I find it 
objectionable that any software company should be encouraged to 
engage in this type of marketing just as I am opposed to 
telemarketing phone calls, Email spam, or unsolicited junk mail.
    6. The RPFJ is deeply flawed with regard to enforcement. The 
proposed remedy lasts five years with a minor sanction of a one-time 
extension of two years in the event of non-compliance. It is 
extremely naive to believe that Microsoft will cease to be a 
monopoly in five years--and will thereby have insufficient 
market power to engage in illegal behavior to preserve its 
monopoly--particularly considering the large network effects 
and complementarities that exist in software products. Microsoft has 
been declared a monopoly. As long as it remains a monopoly, it 
should be regulated as such until Microsoft can prove itself 
otherwise. The inclusion of an expiration date for sanctions serves 
to ameliorate most of the effect the remedy proposes to offer. 
Furthermore, I see no concrete penalties whatsoever in terms of non-
compliance. While I am not an expert in contract law, even I know 
that a contract must clearly specify the penalties for violations of 
the agreement. In the absence of such sanctions, the document is 
little more than a wish list.
    My list of objections to the current RPFJ is not exhaustive, and 
I have only focused on the problems I find most obvious. Further 
comprehensive evaluation is available in the comments made by the 
economists Robert E. Litan, Roger D. Noll, and William D. Nordhaus 
(January 17, 2002; available from the American Antitrust Institute 
web site). In addition, another excellent analysis done by Dan Kegel 
is available at: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    I agree with the comments in both of these documents.
    In closing, let me leave you with a parable that summarizes some 
of the shortcomings in the RPFJ. In my parable a large 18-wheel 
truck is speeding and weaving down an interstate highway. Do to its 
recklessness, several car accidents have occurred in its wake, and a 
state highway patrol car has pulled the truck over. The cop is 
informed by his superior to apply the relevant traffic laws, which, 
in my story, have been modeled on the RPFJ. Here is what the traffic 
cop reads in his codebook:
    -The traffic law allows the driver of the truck the right to 
define what a ``truck'' is.
    -The traffic law is not clear on which part of the truck is 
actually defined to be speeding.
    -The traffic law suggests a fine of $1 since the damage only 
consisted of ``compact'' cars.
    The traffic law only mandates that the driver obey the speed 
limit for the next 5 miles. Any further transgressions will result 
in this restriction applying for 2 more miles. After the maximum of 
7 miles, the truck driver can do anything he wishes. Furthermore, 
the traffic law is completely silent on what the penalty will be for 
further violations.
    -The traffic law allows the driver to demand back his $1 fine 
after 14 days.
    The US Department of Justice has won a historic ruling against 
Microsoft, a victory which has been largely upheld by the appellate 
Court; Microsoft has been found guilty of engaging in illegal 
activities in its attempt to preserve a monopoly position in the 
software industry. As a result of these activities, it has most 
certainly increased its monopoly power and has done unfathomable 
damage to the development of innovative technologies and new 
products which may have existed, but for Microsoft's actions. I urge 
the US Department of Justice to withdraw its consent from the 
present RPFJ. Any new settlement should address the current RPFJ's 
obvious shortcomings. As it

[[Page 27982]]

stands, it will not unfetter the market from Microsoft's 
anticompetitive conduct, nor will it properly penalize Microsoft for 
its past behavior.
    Sincerely,
    Rodney M. Chun, Ph.D.
    Senior Research Analyst
    Sphere Institute
    Phone: (650) 558-3980, ext. 17
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00027314

From: Jason Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement primarly addresses present and 
future concerns of commercial entities. It seems that this will 
promote a better relationship between OEMs and Microsoft. It, 
however, does not fully address past behavior of Microsoft. 
Microsoft's grievances have limited OEMs and others in what they 
could do with their(the OEM's) products. The proposed settlement 
does not fully address this past behavior. Microsoft through their 
forceful agreements with OEMs and others has blocked other companies 
and non-commercial entities from getting a fair chance to compete. 
Unfortunately, these actions have already occurred. The future 
restrictions that will be placed on Microsoft in this settlement 
will not give competitors the ability to catch up with Microsoft.
    I am opposed to the currently proposed settlement. I feel it 
lacks significant punishment for past actions on behalf of 
Microsoft. It also fails to the provisions necessary to allow for a 
truly competitive operating systems market. There is also little to 
no provision for non-commercial software and development, which also 
is struggling to find its place in the market.
    Sincerely,
    Jason A. Wood



MTC-00027315

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I do not support the proposed Microsoft settlement, and 
recommend Judge Jackson's judgement be enforced.
    Valerie Collins
    Senior Software Engineer, Computer Sciences Corp.



MTC-00027317

From: Scott Swanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing in response to the request for public comments on 
the proposed settlement between the department of justice (DOJ) and 
Microsoft Corp. (MS) referenced on the web site at http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm.
    It is my opinion that the settlement against Microsoft is not 
fair to American consumers and does nothing to limit the anti-
competitive actions of this monopoly. To call the current settlement 
proposal fair belittles the intelligence of the American population 
and does no credit to its government. If any settlement were to be 
at all effective, it would have to limit the companies ability to 
maintain, or extend, its monopoly. This is not currently the case.
    If competition is to be encouraged, Microsoft will have to be 
stopped from being able to ``bundle'' their software. 
Bundling their software (or including multiple products in one 
package at one price) gives them the opportunity to make it more 
expensive to buy a product from a competitor and limit the ability 
of that competitor from being able to compete on a level playing 
field. Each piece of software distributed by Microsoft should be 
sold separately with a separate price.
    Microsoft should be limited from adapting standards to suit 
their own purposes. Any file formats or communication formats should 
be released to anyone interested long before it could be included in 
any product. This would limit the ability of Microsoft to abuse 
their position on the majority of desktops to extend it to another 
area where they didn't yet have a stronghold.
    The entire application programming interface (API) should be 
made available to anyone that wishes to program against any 
Microsoft application. This would allow programmers external to 
Microsoft to compete on equal footing with those inside Microsoft. 
Microsoft has been found to have illegally maintained its monopoly 
position. Yet there has been no remedy for this situation proposed 
that would hamper that illegal activity. I strongly oppose the 
current proposal and hope that a much stronger ruling will take its 
place.
    Scott Swanson
    3539 27th Place West, #314
    Seattle, WA 98199



MTC-00027318

From: Charles A. Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:58pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    DEAR SIR/MADAM THE TIME HAS COME TO SETTLE THE MICROSOFT 
SQUABBLE AS IT IS NO LONGER SERVING THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC 
TO CONTINUE LEGAL ACTIONS WITH MORE COSTS TO THE PUBLIC AND 
MICROSOFT. THE OFFER BY MICROSOFT TO SETTLE WITH THE GOVERNMENT WILL 
BENEFIT MOST USERS AND THE PUBLIC.
    CHARLES A. BROWN



MTC-00027319

From: Jason Westlake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's a bad idea to settle with Microsoft, mainly because it 
won't teach them a lesson... a paltry fine or ``donation'' 
to education won't do anything to teach them; they have billions 
upon billions of dollars in cash. The DOJ must act harshly! The only 
way to prevent them from continuing to act in anticompetitive ways 
is to BREAK UP MICROSOFT! PLEASE BREAK UP MICROSOFT!
    Thanks,
    Jason Westlake
    Computer Technician
    Newnan, GA



MTC-00027320

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:02pm
Subject: Mircrosoft Legal Problems
    Lets resolve the microsoft issues. We need to warn microsoft 
that they should not infringe on others or prevent competition. The 
government should be reasonable regarding the fine and close all 
Microsoft legal problems.
    See attachmentr.
Vernon Dede
301 Woodland Trail
Keller, 17< 76248-2630
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After three long years of antitrust lawsuit court battles, 
Microsoft and the government have a settlement that has profound 
implications for all software publishers, the rest of the computer 
industry and consumers. By ending this case, the government is 
freeing this innovative giant to create more jobs. That's good for 
our lagging economy. Under the agreement, computer manufacturers 
were granted new rights to configure systems with various Windows 
features hidden or removed to make competing, non-Microsoft software 
more prominent. Microsoft must also design future versions of 
Windows to make it easier for users to install non-Microsoft 
software. Finally, it is obliged to disclose information about 
certain internal interfaces in Windows. The agreement goes far 
beyond the original issues in the lawsuit, but Microsoft agreed to 
it just to get the legal hassles over with. If we have solved 
problems with the agreement that we never set out to solve in the 
first place, there is clearly no need for further federal action 
after the agreement's approval.
    Sincerely,
    Vernon Dede



MTC-00027321

From: Tim Ambrose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement!
    To whom it may concern,
    I guess this will never end. I just heard that AOL is going to 
take Microsoft to coart over the same thing that it's been 
compaining about for ever. It should be very obvious what their game 
is, and tat is to hang their competetor up as long as possible while 
they gain in market share and time. The same appleys to these state 
law suits except all the attorney generals want is fame and 
noteriety. I hate what our country and it's court system has become! 
Anybody can take anybody to court without any real reason, except to 
try and bring them down and all the while bringing our country and 
the lives of the inocent doun with it.
    PLEASE END THIS CANCER ON MICROSOFT .

[[Page 27983]]



MTC-00027322

From: Conniejo Squires
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:05pm
Subject: Freedom To Innovate-Microsoft
Renata B. Hesse
Anti-Trust Division
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    It is important to all that this law suit end. Microsoft has by 
their example taken the computer and software industry above and 
beyond the industries expectations. Our country has always been one 
that we have the freedom to inovate. Microsoft has made computer use 
possible for many users by making a working software that all could 
use easily. It is unfair to punish them for doing this. In the end 
the consumer is the one that suffers. When A.T.& T. split to 
meet the courts demands now we receive three different bills each 
month rather than one. The consumers are the ones that have to deal 
with the consequences. This doesn't seem fair.
    Microsoft has free of charge given computers and software to 
many schools in Washington State and a few to other states as well. 
If they had not done this the schools would not have been able to 
provide computers for the children to use and have this opportunity.
    America has managed on Competition being healthy. It makes the 
product better. It sounds to me that the complainers do not have the 
intelligence or where with all to inovate something on their own, to 
make a product that is competitive and make it better for all 
consumers. So why should Microsoft have to be punished because they 
were willing to inovate.
    Sincerely,
    Connie Jo Squires
    Spokane, Washington 99208



MTC-00027323

From: Ed Pope
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:06pm
Subject: Comment on Proposed Settlement
    I do not believe the settlement is in the best interests of the 
free enterprise system.
    Ed Pope
    Atlanta, Georgia



MTC-00027325

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department Of Justice: It is my belief that your settlement 
with Microsoft is more than fair. In fact I believe that being a 
person that has followed the case detail by detail from the start 
that this case against Microsoft should have never been brought in 
the first place.
    Further I believe it was the other large software companies that 
by their own doings couldn't build a better product and spent their 
energy and money instead in the government arena to try and delete 
the only competition they had, Microsoft.
    I have for the past 5 years used and owned stock in AOL. They 
have a good product but it is just not right for them to use the 
courts and our government to try and defeat Microsoft. They should 
spend their (AOL) time and resources rather to build a better 
product and service. The freedom to compete is what this country is 
all about. You don't see Microsoft crying foul! The people of the 
world are better served by allowing all companies to compete. Yes, 
there will be a winner maybe and a looser but that doesn't mean we 
don't let the winner win.
    Let the consumer decide with their dollars who they want to do 
business with. We don't need our government deciding for us.
    I say the same thing I have from the start.. ``Leave 
Microsoft Alone'' Our country will be a better place for it. 
Beyond that I feel it is more than generous of Microsoft to give 
computer support to our schools.
    Regards,
    Steve Riebe
    4125 86th Ave SE
    Mercer Island, WA 98040



MTC-00027326

From: Tom Simpson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:07pm
Subject: Microsoft as Monopoly
    Dear Sirs:
    This short note is to state my position that Microsoft has 
consistently proven itself to be a company that is willing to run 
roughshod over its competitors and has further used its monopoly 
position in order to extort concessions from others in the industry 
and to foist technically inferior products upon entrapped customers, 
In other words, they generally do all of the ugly things that we 
know monopolies did over 100 years ago, when the Carnegies, 
Rockefellers and Morgans of the world abused and used the 
marketplace to claw their way to the top. Now, Microsoft has set its 
sights on the Internet itself. They simply must be stopped.
    Tom Simpson
    Graduate School
    University of South Carolina--Columbia
    3420 Heyward St,
    Columbia, SC 29205



MTC-00027327

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice my disgust with the proposed settlement 
for the Microsoft case. This settlement does not do anything to 
quell Microsoft's power, and looking at the settlement I can see 
legal holes the size of Alaska which Microsoft can use to all but 
ignore this settlement.
    Microsoft has unfairly gained a monopoly in the Intel Operating 
System market, and is currently using illegal and immoral tactics to 
become the only provider in the browser market, web services, 
desktop recording software, and other fields.
    This trial is based around the browser war between Internet 
Explorer and Netscape, however the bigger picture is that Microsoft 
has been abusing its power for years. Even when faced with 
preliminary injunctions they have laughed in the face of the law and 
put together a legal team that no company has the power to fight 
against.
    The courts have ruled a few times that Microsoft has a monopoly, 
and is abusing that power. While I don't know what the answer is, 
this settlement does nothing against this problem. Splitting 
Microsoft into many smaller separate companies (IE, OS, Office, and 
others) might be a place to start. Now that Microsoft has the market 
share in web browsers (since the lawsuit was filed, Microsoft has 
moved from a 50% share in browsers to over 80%), they are trying to 
use that power to further remove Netscape from the playing field, 
and Java at the same time. Their newer browsers are moving from the 
Netscape plug-in applications to a new style, forcing new companies 
to choose between Netscape and Microsoft, which will further the 
gap. Microsoft is also steering their browsers away from Java and 
towards their proprietary .NET platform.
    Another downside to the proposed settlement is the time factor. 
This settlement is only for 5-7 years, while it has already 
taken over 3 years to come this far. If we are going to go to all 
the time and expense, let us monitor the company for 15-25 
years, and make penalties strong, clear and concise. We should not 
have to go through another 3 years of trials when (not if) Microsoft 
violates the settlement, just to give Microsoft a slap on the wrist.
    Thank you for your time. Ben Greslick
    Network Administrator
    The Concord Consortium
    ``Integrating technology into the classroom''
    www.concord.org



MTC-00027328

From: Edward Kiser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing in order to comment publicly about the proposed 
Microsoft settlement, as allowed by the Tunney Act. I fail to see 
how Microsoft has done anything but set terms upon the use of its 
own property. Those terms may be unpleasant for some people, I 
admit, even as they become very pleasant for others, but such terms 
do not infringe anyone's rights. They cannot. For who has the right 
to meddle in a deal between two other people, a deal involving only 
property which those two people own?
    As a Microsoft operating system user, I fail to see how 
Microsoft could set any terms that would be any worse for me than if 
it had never created its property in the first place. What if 
Microsoft charges a million dollars for a license for the next 
version of Windows? I can refuse to buy it. What if Microsoft 
creates a patch which disables my favorite software? I can refuse to 
install that patch, or if I accidentally install it, I can reinstall 
the operating system from the original CDs and thereby remove the 
patch. Can Microsoft remotely disable my copy of Windows? No; 
Microsoft and I have a contract, and I have not accepted, and will 
not accept, one that gives them remote-disable capabilities. I fail 
to see how Microsoft can infringe my rights through any licensing 
scheme or any combination of features or any technical features or 
any pricing strategy. (Fraud or an infringement of privacy would 
hurt me, but Microsoft is not

[[Page 27984]]

accused of those things.) Even if I were an OEM, or a browser 
writer, Microsoft could do nothing to me without my consent, except 
offer my customers a better deal than I can, and take them all away. 
But customers are not a right; customers choose what is best for 
them. A business has to earn customers!
    It is quite easy to see, on the other hand, how a government of 
power-hungry politicians and judges could ultimately force me to 
write software only to its specifications, or the specifications of 
my competitors. It is easy to see how a government could make people 
think that they could demand any product from me, merely because 
they decided it was ``possible'' for me to make that 
product--and how a government could back such demands by force, 
without regard for whether I chose to make such a product. It is 
easy to see that anything done to Microsoft sets a precedent that 
could reach back to me, and any attempts to reassure me that these 
kinds of punishments apply only to Microsoft, make me worry more, 
because that means the principle of equality before the law has been 
discarded. It's also easy to see how a corporation such as Netscape 
might hope to get ahead by buddying up to local politicans and 
attorneys general, when it fails to get ahead by superior products 
and, more importantly, business strategies. Netscape's business 
strategies were more responsible for its fate than Microsoft's 
strategies. Rather than aggressively adding features to version 4.0, 
Netscape decided to do a bottom-up rewrite of its browser, which it 
ultimately had to make open source. Even then, development proceeded 
so slowly that two key developers eventually resigned. Netscape's 
bad decisions gave Microsoft time to get farther ahead. Politicians 
welcome such a deal as the one they made with Netscape, and they 
welcome the power that comes with it, while Netscape welcomes the 
opportunity to vanquish its competition by dishonest means. That's 
something Microsoft never did. Microsoft has not been dishonest, 
although it may have aggressively made some predictions about what 
other people would do and used them to frighten still other 
people--who perhaps need not have been frightened. Furthermore, 
Microsoft never lobbied politicians until it was forced to do so by 
this very case. In self-defense.
    It seems remarkable that OEMs feeling threatened by Microsoft 
would not have banded together to produce an alternative to Windows. 
Is it possible that they were prevented from doing so by the same 
anti-trust laws that Microsoft is accused of breaking? This case has 
been a travesty and a sham, and since it is already irreversible, 
the best thing for America would be if Microsoft got a token 
sentence and were let alone, and then if this law were found 
unconstitutional, as it ought to be found.
    Sincerely,
    Edward Kiser
    Jacksonville, FL



MTC-00027329

From: Lincoln Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement U. S. District Court Judge Colleen 
Kollar-Kotelly:
    As a systems engineer and software developer focused on the 
success of the consumer, I ask you to consider the stronger remedies 
against Microsoft proposed by the 9 non-settling states and the 
District of Columbia. I will let their arguments stand on their own 
merits. I have 12 years of experience in software development since 
graduating from U. of Arizona with a B.S. in Systems Engineering. I 
develop and lead development teams working on many platforms 
including UNIX, Windows, and VMS, in many languages including C, 
C++, and Java. Most of my projects involve large-scale cross-
platform software systems. The ability of technology to communicate 
effectively across different platforms allows consumers to utilize 
that technology in a simple and seamless manner. Microsoft's 
monopoly position has allowed it to engage in illegal practices that 
impede the ability of other companies to implement the interaction 
of Windows and non-Windows systems effectively. Microsoft's behavior 
has hurt the entire software technology industry and will continue 
to slow its advancement, to the detriment of consumers in the long 
run, unless the stronger remedies are imposed.
    My opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent the 
opinions of any of my past or current employers.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Lincoln P. Thomas
    Software Engineer and Team Leader
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    [email protected]



MTC-00027330

From: Linda Chia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The concerned parties in this frivolous lawsuit MUST SETTLE so 
Microsoft (and the industry as a whole) can continue to move ahead 
with the freedom to innovate and thus create jobs to bring this 
country out of its recession.
    I have been unemployed since June 2001 when my job was 
eliminated. I would much rather see all the concerned use their 
time, talent, and resources to help put U.S. citizens back to work!
    Thank you.
    Linda J. Chia
    3032 N. Kenmore Ave.
    Chicago, IL 60657-4365
    773-281-6320 voice/fax



MTC-00027331

From: T.K.Egan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is at best lousy for the consumer, for 
the United States, and for anyone who uses a computer. However my 
comments are in line with Dan Kegel's open letter ( http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html ) to with I have asked my name be 
added as a co signer. I hope the government will do the right thing 
and act in the interest of America and her people.



MTC-00027332

From: Darrell Michaud
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    In accordance with the Tuney act I would like to offer my humble 
opinion regarding the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    I believe that many parts of Section III, Prohibited Conduct, 
are well-intended but contain enough technological loopholes for 
Microsoft to render them ineffective. Prohibited Conduct A.1 and A.2 
are meaningless as a remedy because Microsoft no longer needs to 
retaliate against OEM distributors directly to maintain its 
monopoly. Over the past few years Microsoft has introduced 
deliberate technical devices to prevent its software from being used 
in dual-boot environments. Even if a distributor wishes to create 
dual-boot options for their customers and is protected from direct 
retaliation, Microsoft still retains the technological means to 
prevent dual-boot solutions from being competitive.
    Prohibited Conduct C (all numbered items) suffers from the same 
flaw. The proposed judgement states: ``Microsoft shall not 
restrict BY AGREEMENT any OEM licensee..'' (emphasis added) 
There is nothing said about technological restrictions that 
accomplish the same ends as the prohibited conduct. Just as 
Microsoft was able to circumvent the spirit of the Supreme Court's 
judgement through technological means (ie, integrating their web 
browser into the Windows(TM) Operating System), so too will they 
circumvent the spirit of this proposed remedy.
    Until Microsoft is restricted from both agreement/contract 
retaliation and technological retaliation, they can continue to 
leverage their monopoly illegally.
    Thank You,
    Darrell Michaud



MTC-00027333

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1l:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 26,2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    On behalf of myself, I respectfully submit the following public 
comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in the case of United States 
of America, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, District of Columbia 
Civil Action No. 98-1232. The District Court is entitled to 
consider the ``impacta'' of the proposed judgment on 
``the public generall'' Under that broad criterion, the 
proposed judgment clearly fails to meet even a superficial test for 
serving the public interest. Rather, the proposed judgment is based 
on the Court's acceptance of an incorrect and fraudulent premise, as 
initially set forth by the United States in its complaint, and 
applies the antitrust laws of the United States in a manner 
inconsistent with its intent and

[[Page 27985]]

practical scope. In addition, the proposed judgment assumes that the 
public is incapable of asserting its self-interest in the absence of 
government action, a presumption that is offensive on a personal 
level and an expression of bad public policy. In reviewing the 
proposed judgment and the accompanying Competitive Impact Statement 
(``ClS''), the United States offers no verifiable claim 
that any action taken by Microsoft harmed consumers or the public 
interest. What they do offer is a narrative describing the failure 
of Microsoft' competitors to provide a product that the public 
supported, through the mechanism of the free market, to the extent 
that the competitors could maintain a profitable enterprise. This 
failure by Microsofta.TMs competitors does not, however, constitute 
something that is detrimental to the consuming public.
    The central thesis to the government's case is the belief that 
Microsoft enjoys monopoly in the operating system market. This is an 
incorrect belief, the prior findings of the District Court and the 
United States Court of Appeals to the contrary notwithstanding. 
Microsoft has never enjoyed a monopoly in the operating system 
market, or any other market it has competed in for that matter. In 
the most fundamental sense, a ``monopoly'' is an entity 
which enjoys an exclusive license to trade in a particular market. 
Such a license can only be granted by the affirmative act of a 
government entity. Microsoft does not, and has never, enjoyed such a 
government license to monopolize the operating system market.
    The United States has confused Microsoft ``TMS'' 
position of relative dominance as constituting a monopoly. They 
betray this logic at numerous points in the proposed judgment and 
CIS. For example, on page 25 of the CIS the United States claims the 
proposed judgment will allow computer manufacturers freedom from 
coercion or retaliation by Microsoft'' This is an absurd claim. 
Coercion is defined as employing a threat of force against an 
individual to force them to act against their self-interest. There 
is no evidence that Microsoft can use force against anyone. It does 
not possess a police force, or an army, or a court system. Microsoft 
has no means to exert its will to the extent that it violates the 
rights of another. What the company has done is use legitimate and 
legal tactics, including the retaliation the government improperly 
condemns, to aggressively compete within the market.
    The market within which Microsoft competes has, in fact, been 
misidentified repeatedly by the government, the District Court, and 
the Court of Appeals. According to the CIS, the market for 
monopolization purposes is supposedly restricted to operating 
systems used on Intel-compatible personal computers. The United 
States deliberately excludes operating systems on non-Intel 
compatible computers because, the CIS says, consumers are very 
reluctant to substitute away from Intel-compatible personal 
computers because to do so would entail incurring substantial costs 
and would not result in a satisfactory substitute. Thus we have a 
real gap in logic. If the consumer is not substituting a non-Intel 
computer for an Intel computer based on considerations of price and 
quality, is that not a consumer choice? The free market is defined 
by the choices made by consumers. The government takes a 
contradictory and irrational approach, defining the market in such a 
limited way as to make the definition arbitrary and capricious.
    I have been a computer user for more than a decade. In that time 
I have often weighed the option of purchasing Intel-compatible 
computers over non-Intel models. My choice has weighed a number of 
factors, including price, availability of application software, 
quality of the components used and even aesthetics. My ultimate 
decision is not important; what is important is that I considered 
models across the market without regard for the government's 
arbitrary and exclusionary definition and made an informed and 
voluntary choice. Millions of other consumers have done likewise, 
and the government's claims here are an attempt to deny this fact. 
Similarly, on the many Intel-compatible computers I have purchased 
through the years, there have been times where I have declined to 
use a Microsoft operating system. I did so irrespective of the fact 
that a Microsoft OS was pre-installed and programmed to boot with 
the computer. As an informed consumer I made the effort to consider 
other operating systems and install one independently. The proposed 
judgment here assumes I am incapable of that action, for it assumes 
such an act would only be undertaken if multiple operating systems 
were made available to me at the time of purchase. Similarly, the 
proposed judgment presumes the presence of desktop will help non-
Microsoft middleware programs compete with Microsoft programs; in 
fact millions of computer users already do so without such 
manipulative prompting at the behest of the government. For the 
government to state otherwise is illogical, offensive, and not in 
the public interest.
    Additionally, the proposed judgment is not in the public 
interest because it would inflict a manifest injury against the 
rights and liberties of the people of the United States, 
specifically the right of private property. A key component of the 
proposed judgment's remedy is a requirement that Microsoft make its 
source codes available to a government-sanctioned oversight 
committee, which in turn is supposed to ensure these same source 
codes are made available to non-Microsoft middleware producers, so 
that these companies can create products to compete with Microsoft. 
Since the United States would retain the right, under the proposed 
judgment, to determine and enforce the scope to which these source 
codes are to be made available, the final judgment constitutes a 
seizure of private property the source codes and its subsequent 
conversion to a public good. Such an act is wholly incompatible with 
the Constitution of the United States and even the antitrust laws 
that are supposedly being enforced in this case.
    From a practical standpoint, the antitrust laws were designed to 
impose static remedies upon static industries where the market and 
its competitive components could be easily quantified and centrally 
managed. The software industry is neither static nor easily 
quantified. It is a dynamic marketplace of ideas and innovation, and 
such an entity cannot be centrally managed or overseen in a rational 
manner. Even the Court of Appeals admitted as much in its review of 
this case last year, noting that the software industry would 
continue to evolve many times before this case was concluded. This 
evolution continues regardless of Microsoft's dominance of the 
Intel-compatible OS market, but it will not continue if extensive 
government oversight is introduced into the marketplace. This 
proposed judgment unreasonably attempts to dictate the competitive 
balance in an industry where such a concept has been rendered 
virtually meaningless. Software is not like the railroads or 
petroleum refining. Any individual can use their mind and 
inexpensive equipment to write an operating system, develop a word 
processing program, or even lay the foundation for a global 
information network. The entire barriers to entry analysis employed 
in the CIS for this case is thus completely without merit.
    The proposed judgment seizes Microsoft's property for the 
express purpose of enhancing Microsoft's competitors. Such an act 
should offend every American who owns private property of any kind, 
because if a large and successful corporation is not entitled to the 
fruits of its own labor, than what hope is there for the ordinary 
American citizen of less affluent means? The proposed judgment, 
rather than serving the public interest, will only serve to 
undermine public confidence in the government's role as the final 
guarantor of private property rights.
    As a concerned citizen, I urge the District Court to reject the 
proposed judgment and dismiss the government's complaint without 
further delay. Barring that unlikely action, I would encourage the 
United States to reconsider its position on Microsoft, and its 
enforcement of antitrust laws in general. This case has demonstrated 
the futility and harm that can result from the application of 
irrational and immoral public policy.
    Sincerely,
    Skip Oliva
    2000 F Street, NW, #315
    Washington, DC 20006-4217
    [email protected]



MTC-00027334

From: Jonathan Kiang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. It is a reckless 
abdication of the Federal government's antitrust responsibilities.
    The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft violated Federal 
and State antitrust laws. Any settlement or judgement needs to 
supply both a remedy against future violations and a deterent to 
potential violators. This one provides neither.
    Considering that Microsoft performed many of its illegal 
activities under the apparently mosty hypothetical onus of the 
consent decree stemming from the government's 1994 antitrust case, 
the proposed final judgement leaves Microsoft too leeway in its 
actions. Microsoft has shown no indication that it would be inclined 
to follow the spirit or intent of the

[[Page 27986]]

antitrust laws if left to its own devices, and the proposed final 
judgement fails to account for this.
    The proposed final judgement, if approved, would make the 1956 
du Pont cellophane case look like a brilliant piece of antitrust 
reasoning. If the goal of the antitrust laws is to promote consumer 
welfare and the competitive process, then the proposed final 
judgement fails to do either.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Kiang



MTC-00027335

From: Tom Dilligan (091)Tall Mini-God(093)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have been a software developer and watcher of the computer 
industry for the last 18 years. In that time I have developed 
software for a large array of systems from home computers (with both 
non-Microsoft and Microsoft operating systems) and for large 
mainframe systems. I am currently employed as a Senior Systems 
Developer for Industrial Light + Magic.
    I would like to comment against the Microsoft Settlement of the 
Anti-trust lawsuit against them, pursuant to the Tunney Act. I 
oppose the settlement in the current form for the following reasons. 
The proposed settlement largely consists of donations to schools. 
This will do nothing to hinder Microsofts actions in the market 
place. If anything, this will increase Microsoft's market share. 
None of the reports that I have read state that Microsoft will 
include support contracts for the software that they are donating 
Software without support costs nearly nothing. The costs of 
producing software falls primarily into two categories: development 
and support. The costs of distributing (CD-ROMS, documentation, 
packaging) are tiny in compared with the development costs and 
support costs. In the case of Microsoft products, no part of the 
purchase price goes to support costs, because Microsoft support is 
done through a pay per incident. Calling Microsoft for any support 
reason will cost $50.00 or more per call, unless a support contract 
has been purchased.
    If no support contracts are provided, and no support is provided 
as part of the purchase price, then it can be argued that the entire 
purchase price is going towards the development of new Microsoft 
software. The development costs of the software have already been 
recaptured, as evidenced by Microsoft's 36 billion dollar cash 
reserves. This cash reserve is nearly twice that of General Motors, 
a company that reports seven times the sales of Microsoft.
    These cash reserves allow Microsoft to come into any marketplace 
and give away (dump) software until they have forced any competitors 
out of the market. Clear examples of this happening in the past 
include the internet browser software Netscape. In the case of 
Netscape, Microsoft was very successful in giving away their browser 
software, and in fact forcing people to use it by making it an 
integral part of the user experience. Microsoft included the server 
software with the ``server'' versions of Microsoft's 
operating systems (i.e. Windows NT, Windows 2000). Netscape only had 
the revenue generated by their browser and server products to 
generate income. With Microsoft effectively giving the software 
away, it became increasingly difficuly for Netscape to function as a 
business, eventually getting purchased by what is now America Online 
/ Time Warner.
    Microsoft's business practice of taking serious losses to 
penetrate into the market place can be easily seen right now with 
Microsoft's introduction of the X-Box gaming system. Microsoft has 
never competed in the home videogame console market. The retail 
price of an X-Box is approximately $350.00. Most analysts have 
estimated the actual cost of production to be closer to $500.00. In 
any sort of trade arrangement, this would be considered 
``dumping''. Sony, Nintendo, and Sega (Microsoft's 
competition) all sell their come consoles at close to cost, but do 
not actually lose money.
    Microsoft has engaged in highly restrictive licensing practices 
that has made it ``unfeasable'' for OEM computer 
manufactures (Dell, Gateway, IBM, ect...) to support non-Microsoft 
operating systems. This has forced free and / or alternative 
operating (i.e. Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, BeOS) into the domain of 
the technical hobbyist, which is an extremely small portion of the 
operating system market.
    Microsoft delays or suppresses publication of interfaces, 
protocols, and file formats that would be useful to third party 
developers. These interfaces, protocols and file formats are all 
available to Microsoft programmers, but are (in general) not 
available to non-Microsoft programmers. This gives Microsoft an 
insurmountable edge in that they can easily write software that 
interacts with other Microsoft software, but non-Microsoft 
developers are unable to write software with tight integration to 
Microsoft products.
    Microsoft is notorious for taking industry standard interfaces, 
protocols, and file formats, changing or extending them slightly 
before integrating them into Microsoft products. This allows them to 
proclaim ``industry compliance'', but they will rarely 
publish the extensions that they have made to the interfaces, 
protocols, and file formats. This has two unfortunate effects. The 
first is similar to the point raised above: only Microsoft can 
effectively use the extended interfaces, protocols and file formats. 
The second is that by not announcing or documenting extensions, they 
have effectively made the interfaces (or protocol, or file format) 
Microsoft's, as nobody can extend or change the interface without 
potentially interfering with Microsoft's extensions (because nobody 
outside of Microsoft knows what Microsoft is doing). In light of 
this, clearly more punative actions must be applied to Microsoft to 
force it into a position where it cannot simply walk into any market 
and crush it by sheer financial clout. I would propose the following 
as the sort of steps that must be taken to limit Microsoft's 
monopoly power.
    Microsoft's cash reserves must be drained. This would involve a 
penalty (or stock dividend) in the range of 33 billion dollars, and 
would bring
    Microsoft's cash to gross income ratio into the same range as 
other large companies (such as General Motors).
    Microsoft should adopt a simplified, non-restrictive licensing 
policy for OEM computer manufactors. Failing this, an outright ban 
should be made on bundling non-free software with computers. While a 
split of the Microsoft corporation is desireable. It is very 
difficult to define a dividing line. I would propose a remedy of 
modularizing of the software packages produced so that each 
application would have a specific task (i.e. word-processing, 
spreadsheet, illustration, painting, ect...) as opposed to massive 
conglomerations of product (i.e. Microsoft Office). The only contact 
that the teams would have would be via publicly published 
documentation on interfaces, protocols and file formats. This would 
allow for outside manufacturs to tightly integrate their software 
with Microsoft's products.
    These are a small sampling of the concerns that I have with the 
proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. 
Consider this my plea to reconsider the proposed settlement, and 
work to make it sufficiently strong as to actually stop Microsoft in 
their quest to completely dominate the computing industry.
    Thomas A. Dilligan
    San Rafael, CA.



MTC-00027336

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html).
    I find it particulary objectionable that the PFJ doesn't take 
into account Windows-compatible competing operating systems. 
MicroSoft should not be allowed to raise artificial barriers against 
non-Microsoft operating systems which implement the APIs needed to 
run application programs written for Windows.
    This problem alone makes me conclude that the Proposed Final 
Judgment as written allows and encourages significant 
anticompetitive practices to continue, and would delay the emergence 
of competing Windows-compatible operating systems. In addition to 
the other problems expressed by Dan Kegel, I strongly believe that 
the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest, and 
should not be adopted without addressing these issues.
    David B. Belser



MTC-00027338

From: John Fulton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I would like to comment under the Tunney Act on the proposed 
settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case. I 
realize that you have to go through a lot of material,

[[Page 27987]]

so in order to be as brief as possible I would like to echo the 
comments made by Dan Kegel, which can be viewed at: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    I support his overall comments on the proposed settlement and 
would like to add my voice to his.
    Thank you,
    John Fulton
    Webmaster, Rutgers University Computing Services



MTC-00027339

From: Young Jun Key
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Department of Justice
    Hello, I'm a student who is interested in studying computer 
science at State University of New York at Stony Brook. First of 
all, I'm very disappointed at the outcome of the trial. I was in the 
United States when the trial was on going, and I fully understand 
the effect of the tragedy of September 11th on the trial. Although 
I'm not a citizen of the United States of America, and I don't fully 
understand the importance of Microsoft as an national financial 
benefactor, I feel that trial was too much subdued due to the 
national crisis. As far as my understanding goes, United States has 
built it's economic strength upon technological basis. Computer 
technology is the most outgoing technology of the age and the 
Microsoft is the leader of the computer software. They are clearly 
violating the anti-trust law. When there are less than 10 
corporations competing in one specific field of business then the 
business is being monopolized. I've used almost every version of 
Microsoft Windows and it's clearly becoming more focused on the 
Microsoft corporation itself. I believe this convenience is winning 
the market. We need to provide more chance and equal opportunity to 
other venture businesses that's being blocked by the Microsoft 
giant. This trial may benefit American economy for the moment, but 
we need to realize that it is only a temporary solution. I think 
that the issue must be brought back into the court for more fair and 
just solution.
    Sincerely,
    Young Jun Key



MTC-00027340

From: V.V.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to comment on the recent AOL ``Legal Strategy'' 
I believe this lawsuit has anything to do with consumers. AOL has 
been using the political and legal systems for competing against 
Microsoft for several years. This is just the next legal tactic in 
their business plans.
    AOL or anyone need not advise Microsoft that their marketing 
strategy should be ``stripping down Windows'', and instead 
of wasting time in courts try to build a Operating System like 
Windows and see how it takes to do that and if ever it is possible 
for anyone to make a world class OS like Windows.
    The question to challenge browser integration with Windows is 
itself invalid because
    1. Microsoft does not charge for their browser
    2. Any AOL patron can easily install their own browser if they 
dont wish to use the MS browser
    3. AOL itself follows the same strategy by acquiring Netscape 
and bundling theor browsers everwhere (even in my laundry 
underwears!!!) A spam of the highest degree.
    Therefore please dont disturb Microsoft time with the non-sense 
court matters, but rather challenge and compete them in the 
Marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Vivek Velso



MTC-00027341

From: Neale, Bennett
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    By way of the Tunney Act comment process, I am strongly urging 
you to reconsider the settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft 
antitrust lawsuit. Thank you for your time.
    Bennett Neale
    [email protected]



MTC-00027342

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:13pm
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,
    Anne Canning
    23431 Fosdick St.
    Dowagiac, MI 49047-7433



MTC-00027343

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:19pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Gentlemen:
    Please settle this lawsuit in favor of Microsoft and stop 
wasting money and time constantly trying to breakup Microsoft.
    Microsoft is a magnificant firm with brilliant ideas and has 
helped America to be a pioneer in the field of internet and 
software. Microsoft has helped students, business people, lay people 
and people all over the world with their products.
    All these lawsuits disrupting Microsoft is a waste of money and 
time.
    God bless America.
    Sincerely, Elaine Hoo



MTC-00027344

From: Kathleen Dolan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Agreement
    Dear Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney:
    I wish to add my voice to the concerns over the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust Case. I believe that Microsoft 
has made it extremely difficult for anyone to purchase a computer 
without using Microsoft operating systems and software. Because of 
their marketing strength, they have been able to make almost all 
computers sold in the US dependent on their operating systems and 
software. This proposed settlement does not deal with the basic 
issue of the case: the stifling of competition in the operating 
system market. Please do not allow this to go through.
    Thank you,
    K.A. Dolan
    Dolan and Taylor Associates
    P.O.Box 531
    Garrett Park, MD 20896
    CC:[email protected],Steven C Johnson



MTC-00027345

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
27 Jan 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the 
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft Corporation 
antitrust case. I wish to state how disappointed I am in US Atty. 
Gen. John Ashcroft, Illinois Atty. Gen. Jim Ryan, and all the other 
states'' attys. general in this extremely weak and poor 
settlement with the Microsoft Corporation. With their track record 
of poor products and their quashing of almost every possible threat 
to their monopoly (such as the cases with Netscape and their pending 
litigation against Lindows), Microsoft has acted against the 
public's welfare and has cost the economy great quantities of 
productivity. For example, assuming a user base of one million users 
who must endure one crash of their Microsoft OS, a 240 day work-year 
of 8 hour work-days and an average salary of $22,500, those 
unscheduled coffee breaks cost a total of over $29,000,000 per annum 
in lost productivity. This amount does not take into account the 
time needed to recreate lost works in progress or delays to customer 
inquiries because of the delays.
    I also wish to add that I am in full agreement with the 
statements of Dan Kegel, located online at http://www.kegel.com/

[[Page 27988]]

remedy/letter.html ; Jeremy P. White, CEO of CodeWeavers, Inc, 
located online at http://www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunneywine.html 
; and the Free Software Foundation, located online at http://
www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html.
    Any settlement with Microsoft is unsatisfactory. This company, 
and its management, need to be punished much more severely than this 
settlement possibly would. Sincerely,
    Andrew Valkanas
    2523 W Farwell Ave
    Chicago IL 60645



MTC-00027346

From: Grayson Aahr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Ms. Hesse,
    The proposed settlement is not in the public interest. The 
settlement leaves the Microsoft monopoly intact. So long as it is 
intact the company and its leadership will do all in its power to 
stop legitimate competition. This is not our free enterprise system. 
Consumers need competition and choice so they, not Microsoft, decide 
what products are on their computers. Microsoft must not be 
permitted to decide what programs will run on MY computer. It must 
not decide the direction of the entire marketplace. Let the 
``invisible hand'' of the market work. The remedies 
proposed by the several States are certainly necessary and in the 
public interest, but they are not sufficient without removing the 
proven illegal monopoly power from the hands of the malefactors.
    I strongly urge that public proceedings under the Tunney Act be 
held so that the entire public may be heard, not just a narrow group 
of interests.
    Clifford I. Nomberg, J.D.
    Post Office Box 243055
    Boynton Beach, FL 33424-3055
    561-733-3069



MTC-00027347

From: William Law
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department Of Justice:
    Hi, my name is William Law, and I for one think it was a great 
idea to file a lawsuit against Microsoft. Truthfully, I think it was 
wrong for what Microsoft did, to do things illegally, and the theory 
for them to take over the whole entire business. First of all 
Microsoft had too much power, and had too much monoplies. Not only 
that, but in order for Microsoft to gain such power, they had 
illegal acts to help eliminate its rivals and made sure Microsoft 
was the only operating system for PC's and OEM's. Not allowing other 
internet companies, and had restrictions on OEM's. They broke the 
first and second act of the Sherman Act. They tried to eliminate 
Netscape by limiting it's resources, and as well as java. Trying to 
delete Java, is trying to eliminate other programmers to in such 
eliminating other possiblities for choice of Netscape. Microsoft did 
not give other smaller companies a chance to grow in the market. 
Which can result in overpower in the market. Which in that case, 
Microsoft can raise it's prices on their products, and no one can do 
anything about. Since they are the only operating and software out 
there to support a PC, and other OEMS.
    Breaking up microsoft can help consumers to have more options 
and save more money when it comes to Pc's and programs for the 
operating systems. I am glad that you gave freedom to the OEM's as 
well as other small business's the right to choose alternative 
operating systems for the consumer's PC. As well as not letting 
Microsoft to corporate with Windows was also a good idea, so that 
way Microsoft can't restrict certain software only to Windows. That 
way Windows is open free for other software programmers to share 
with. All these new rules will definetly help people save money, and 
save the market from the might powerful Microsoft from conquering 
all of it. What you have done was a great idea, and I for one am 
glad that somebody has put a hold on Microsoft from taking all of 
the computer business. I also wanted to say, letting people write 
comments to the department of justice was a great idea. That way you 
can hear from the people's point of view. Thank you for your time 
and patience.
    Sincerely,
    William Law



MTC-00027348

From: Harold J Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern
    AN IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT FOR MICROSOFT IS IMPERATIVE!!!
    My feelings right now is that Microsoft is being shafted and 
penalized for being a successful company by the Government (DOJ) as 
well as bunch of competitors that are seemingly not smart enough to 
be as good as Microsoft. They are trying to get some of Microsoft's 
smarts by filing lawsuits.
    All of those ridiculer suits should be thrown out and so 
Microsoft can get on with it business of providing high tech 
software and hardware to the public.
    I do not believe Microsoft is over prised as I have a lot of 
Microsoft software on my computer. My e-mail is not Microsoft but 
sure is not AOL and never will be!!
    Harold J. and Carole L. Williams
    21104 33rd Drive SE
    Bothell, WA 98021-3235



MTC-00027349

From: Stephen Horlander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The fact that a convicted monopolist, who has deliberately hurt 
competitors and suppressed innovation, can be let off with a slap on 
the wrist truly makes me wonder about the state of our legal system. 
This proposed settlement in no way will limit Microsoft from 
continuing to abuse their illegal monopoly, and crushing potential 
competition and further strangling their own customers, who will be 
left with little or no choices.
    Already Microsoft has laughed at the Department of Justice and 
the community at large by further populating their operating system 
with services such as Windows Messenger or Windows Media Player or 
the dreaded Passport, which seeks to obtain a new monopoly on not 
just operating systems but on a persons personal information. These 
services are not even removable by the end user, they are stuck with 
them just as they are stuck with Internet Explorer. Not only must 
people suffer with un-needed programs but Microsoft quickly proceeds 
to shove notices for these services in the users face with no way to 
disable them.
    Microsoft uses its monopoly on operating systems and browsers 
and office software to keep a hold on its customers, customers who 
have no way to escape because Microsoft will not release its file 
formats or protocols to the public. I really hope that someone comes 
to their senses before it is too late. Please show Microsoft that it 
cannot do what ever it wants with no consequences just because it 
has enough money and power to do so.



MTC-00027350

From: John McNair
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to express my concern about the proposed settlement 
in the case of United States of America vs. Microsoft Corporation. I 
oppose the settlement on several grounds enumerated as follows:
    I. The settlement fails to address the real damages inflicted on 
Netscape Corporation, OEMs, and most importantly, consumers with 
respect to the bundling and dumping associated with Internet 
Explorer. The United States originally brought the case in question 
against Microsoft because of harm it inflicted on consumers and 
competitors in the course of attempting to destroy Netscape. 
Microsoft spent over $100 million developing a product that it never 
intended to sell. The sole stated purpose of developing Internet 
Explorer was to destroy competition in the browser market. This is 
according to thousands of internal emails entered into evidence 
during the course of this trial.
    Since the focus of this trial was illegal monopoly abuses 
concerning internet browser software, any remedy should give some 
attention to that particular market.
    II. The settlement essentially provides that Microsoft must 
intend to obey the law in the future (at least for the term of the 
settlement). This settlement is no stronger than existing antitrust 
legislation and hence is a waste of paper. At best one could argue 
that this agreement delineates specific actions that are acceptable 
and not acceptable so that Microsoft cannot claim ignorance of the 
intent of antitrust laws in the future. However, ignorance is not 
what lands

[[Page 27989]]

Microsoft in court. It is arrogance, a total disregard for the rules 
that govern civilized people, that puts Microsoft on docket after 
docket.
    III. The settlement is ineffective to prevent future abuses 
along the lines of Microsoft's well-documented modus operandi. Since 
the agreement fails to address past grievances, the presumption is 
that it should curtail future criminal activity at Microsoft. The 
court would do well to remember who the defendant is. This is the 
company that:
    A. intentionally caused their own applications to fail 
sporadically when running on top of DR DOS to make that operating 
system seem unstable. They were ironically forced to resort to this 
because DR DOS was actually a far superior product than MS DOS in 
terms of stability and usability.
    B. forced OEMs to pay license fees to Microsoft for each 
computer shipped whether they shipped with IBM's PC DOS or with MS 
DOS. This made PC DOS appear to be more expensive. This practice 
continued until a court ordered them to stop--eight or nine 
years later. And to my knowledge, Microsoft complied with that court 
order. However, the order came shortly before Windows 95 shipped, 
and where they left off with MS DOS, they picked up with Windows.
    This practice is one of the major harms inflicted on consumers 
by Microsoft. It is impossible for a consumer to buy a pre-assembled 
computer from a major OEM without paying a license fee to the 
Redmond monopolist. Forget illegal anti-competitive practices, 
perjury, and extortion for a moment. Why should consumers be forced 
to pay for something they don't even use? In some cases Microsoft is 
paid for machines that ship with no operating system at all. This 
practice has to stop.
    C. intentionally forced Word Perfect to crash sporadically when 
running on Windows so that it would appear to be even more unstable 
than Microsoft Word. This practice continued until Microsoft 
destroyed Word Perfect as a viable competitor. Many still consider 
Word Perfect to be a superior product, but that consumer choice has 
all but vanished.
    D. dumped $100 million worth of development effort into a 
product to destroy their competition.
    E. repeatedly gave false testimony in this trial and even 
submitted doctored evidence.
    F. is run by a man that has told reporters that he is more 
powerful than the President of the United States. Why then should he 
have to obey US law?
    G. is emulating their Internet Explorer chicanery in an attempt 
to crush Real Networks. Microsoft is integrating Windows Media 
Player into the OS and making Real Player a very difficult 
alternative using the same tricks that worked on Netscape. If they 
force OEMs to ship include Media Player and exclude Real Player, and 
if they make Real Player extremely difficult to install, that 
consumer choice will vanish as well.
    These are not speculative claims. Every statement above, except 
G, is either from William H. Gates, III, other Microsoft executives 
or substantiated in a court of law. This is a very short list of 
reasons not to trust this company to operate in good faith. 
Repeatedly Microsoft has promised not to abuse its monopoly power, 
and repeatedly they have reneged. Why should the court trust them 
this time? This agreement requires far too much good faith on the 
part of Microsoft to have any effect at all.
    The loopholes are many and large. For one thing, the agreement 
for all practical purposes concedes Microsoft's current operating 
system monopoly is a fact of life. However, ``the software code 
that comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be 
determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion.'' This is how 
the Internet Explorer debacle was enabled for so long. Microsoft 
simply declared that the browser was an integral part of the 
operating system in order to circumvent a previous court order. One 
could argue that this tends to push Microsoft into shoddier software 
design practices than even they are wont to embrace, but that is 
outside the scope of this complaint. Section III.6.D provides that 
Microsoft shall disclose APIs in a timely manner while section 
III.J.1.a provides the legal loophole by stating ``J. No 
provision of this Final Judgment shall: 1. Require Microsoft to 
document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of APIs 
or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols 
the disclosure of which would compromise the security of ... anti-
piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, 
encryption or authentication systems ...'' Microsoft has 
recently announced (1/15/02) that pervasive security is number one 
priority. This is too convenient. This gives them the argument that 
they do not have to release any APIs (or the ones they most want to 
protect) because of security risks. Microsoft can arbitrarily choose 
which APIs to expose, and still claim that they acted in good faith 
as they understood this settlement. The line is sufficiently fuzzy 
that any decent $500/hr lawyer should be able to drag out a case 
based on failure to disclose APIs for years.
    Section VI.D restricts the definition of Personal Computer to 
x86-based platforms. Microsoft would not be in violation of this 
agreement if they extended their predatory practices to say, a Power 
PC-based platform. Microsoft has recently announced an initiative to 
produce a virtual hardware layer to run the Windows operating system 
that is similar in principle to the Java virtual machine. This would 
mean that Windows could run on any platform. Again the timing of 
such an announcement is far too convenient. This is yet another way 
that Microsoft can circumvent the terms of this agreement. Microsoft 
has demonstrated repeatedly that they have no respect for the law. 
They will agree to anything that they deem to be a reasonably cost 
effective means of getting out of court. The terms of the agreement 
matter little to them for it will be business as usual within a 
month. Anecdotally, I have known of former Microsoft employees 
claiming that they know of no other company that spends more of its 
resources on simply destroying its competition (using Fear, 
Uncertainty, and Doubt). Hoping that Microsoft will suddenly change 
its attitude is pure fantasy.
    In short, this settlement is more of a pat on the back than the 
slap on the wrist it was intended to be. Microsoft has successfully 
waged a public relations campaign that has clouded the issues 
involved. When Bill Gates is whining that he's not allowed to 
innovate, it's easy for some to forget that he has been in court 
almost continuously for fifteen years for theft of intellectual 
property, bundling, dumping, coercion, and extortion. While not 
everyone has agreed with Judge Jackson rulings, I still think it 
must take some preponderance of evidence for a federal judge to 
characterize publicly the nation's most prominent CEO as a 
``common street thug.'' It's sick Orwellian humor that 
Microsoft should complain that they have been denied the opportunity 
to innovate when they have unashamedly destroyed anything that 
threatened their tyrannical stranglehold on the PC industry.
    John R. McNair, Jr.
    [email protected]



MTC-00027351

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The United States should settle with Microsoft now. Impose 
reasonable restrictions on the company and let everyone go back to 
work doing what they do best. Monetary penalties should be kept to a 
minimum. There is more important work to be done for the good of the 
Country. Greed should not be rewarded. The States should join the 
Federal settlement. Holding out to further appease the various 
special interests is not warranted except to exploit the situation 
and to extort money nefariously.
    Richard Hadrick
    Spring Hill, Florida



MTC-00027352

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to support competition in the computer world. 
Microsoft must not be allowed to become so powerful that users come 
to rely even more than they do now on a single entity. Any 
settlement must open opportunities to alternate technologies, 
allowing Americans a choice.
    Thank you.
    Lee Greenberg



MTC-00027353

From: Roger Sumey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    In accordance with provisions of the Tunney Act, I am sending 
these comments on the Proposed Final Settlement of the United States 
vs Microsoft antitrust case.
    The proposed settlement is seriously flawed in numerous 
respects. It does not redress the market gains Microsoft has 
achieved though illegal, predatory manipulation of OEM's, ISP's, and 
customers to eliminate or control any and all competition to it's 
monopoly in operating systems or office products, and extension of 
that monopoly to networking middleware. It does not restrict 
Microsoft from using it's

[[Page 27990]]

monopoly position in the future to again prevent consumers from 
having effective alternatives to Microsoft products. It has several 
provisions that provide legally recognized grounds for it to conduct 
anti competitive behavior in regard to the open software movement 
that now is it's only competition, as stated by Microsoft itself. 
Lastly, it provides a completely inadequate enforcement mechanism.
    I find that the proposed settlement simply does not serve 
justice in that it provides equal consideration to Microsoft with 
the Government in consideration of issues of enforcement. The 
mechanism for selection of overseers that provides parity to 
Microsoft is offensive on it's face. Add to that the requirement for 
secrecy on their part, prohibiting one of the bastions of America's 
freedom, the press, from revealing any information to the public 
concerning Microsoft's implementation of the settlement will prevent 
that most effective check on Microsoft's often egregious business 
practices. Microsoft has been found guilty of illegal actions. The 
settlement should reflect that fact and in my opinion it does not.
    There are many other aspects of the settlement that are 
seriously flawed that I will not detail. It does not deal 
realistically with Microsoft's long history of predatory behavior 
that continues to this day. Just yesterday, January 26, I read a 
report of Microsoft denying information on .Net technology to an 
developer because they refused to develop exclusively with .Net, 
intending to support Java networking solutions also.
    My comments on the proposed settlement are most respectfully 
tendered.
    Roger Sumey
    4309 Snowdrop Court
    Ellicott City, Maryland
    (410) 465-6690



MTC-00027354

From: Jonathan Sorger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To U.S. Department of Justice:
    I have been following the Microsoft antitrust case and have 
noticed a disturbing pattern that has plagued the business 
world...that competition is no longer the catalyst for developing 
new products in certain markets...that monopolies continue to exist 
and operate with impunity.
    Former U.S. Senator John Tunney criticized Microsoft's 
disclosure of its contacts with our government throughout the 
antitrust case as ``inadequate''. Microsoft interpreted 
his legislation, The Tunney Act, with tunnel vision; and ultimately, 
to their benefit, as the case was settled with the U.S. government 
and 9 of 18 states. Why have large corporations with their 
Congressional lobbying groups become so influential in determining 
the fate of the general public?
    This is a company that produces a ubiquitous operating system 
and now a ubiquitous internet browser; only because it has bullied 
and squeezed out much of the competition over the years. I am an 
Apple computer enthusiast, but I have to work in a Windows NT world. 
Yes, I use some of Microsoft's products on both platforms. They do 
make some good software. But is it good because they've lured or 
snatched up many of the talented people that worked for their 
competition at one time? Is it good because most consumers do not 
know or care what else is available because Microsoft applications 
were pre-loaded with their computer? I'd love to become a full-time 
Linux user, but am forced to use the ever-pervasive Microsoft Word 
because no alternatives exist.
    Please do not make an already powerful company more powerful. I 
will bewatching what develops with the European regulators, with the 
9 remaining holdout states, as well as with the Netscape browser 
case.
    Thank you for providing a feedback mechanism to the public on 
this important case.
    Jonathan Sorger
    Washington, DC
    CC:[email protected]@inet
gw,[email protected]@inetgw,d...



MTC-00027355

From: Glenn Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad 
idea. By allowing them to pay their fine by donating used Pc 
equipment (running Windows OS no doubt) to our nation's schools, 
they are simply guaranteeing themselves future money in support 
contracts and a large user base which will require 
``upgrades'' when the license on their current operating 
systems expire.
    Sincerely,
    Glenn Larson
    [email protected]



MTC-00027356

From: Earl Jenness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Thank you for reaching a settlement in the Microsoft case. Our 
economy is not in a position to grow with Microsoft tied up in 
Court.
    This settlement was reached after lengthy deliberations between 
your department and Microsoft. The deliberations were aided by a 
court-appointed mediator. The concessions are hard fought on both 
sides, and should not be discarded.
    If the settlement is implemented, there is serious potential for 
both strong short term growth and sustained long term growth in the 
computer industry and the economy. In the short term, the effects of 
the settlement will be immediate. Computer makers will be allowed to 
reconfigure Windows operating systems to add existing software 
programs from non-Microsoft companies. In the long term, Microsoft's 
agreements to revise its pricing practices and distribution 
agreements will allow for sustained growth by providing incentives 
for research and development.
    I hope that common sense prevails and this settlement is 
approved.
    Sincerely,
    Earl Jenness



MTC-00027357

From: Sexy Nye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    An entrepreneur is someone who should be highly respected and 
commended for their accomplishments. Unfortunately there are times 
when you reach the top; you will find there are people who want to 
bring you down. I feel this is what is happening in this case. Why 
should Microsoft be punished for their exceptional success? In my 
opinion the accusations of monopoly are false due to the fact that 
competitors are still in business selling their software. It just so 
happens Microsoft sells more. I feel it is untrue that users are not 
able to use whatever software they choose. A computer only does what 
a user tells it to do. If you tell the computer to uninstall a piece 
of software and install another, it will do just that. Computer 
users have a choice of what software they want to use. Microsoft 
shouldn?t be punished for being #1.



MTC-00027358

From: Dennis Catt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
US Department of Justice,
    I just wanted to give my idea of a practical solution. Though I 
do not believe that Microsoft should open its source code to its 
different applications, I do believe that Microsoft, and all 
software companies open the source to text, graphic, audio and video 
formats that are used and affect the internet. What it boils down to 
is that people want to have access to all content on the internet... 
it if being a video clip on CNET or a graphic picture or just simple 
text that might be proprietary to one application. I believe that 
software companies should share file formats of all types that range 
from anything that affects the internet and even Office Suites. They 
can keep their source code to themselves, since that is the bread 
and butter of their product. But file formats do not need to be 
proprietary, I think this will open the software industry to new 
opportunities and horizons and help out the computer industry as a 
whole. This would then keep from startup companies and companies 
already in the field from being discouraged by Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices. As for the operating system issues, I believe 
that the OEMs should be held responsible for neglecting the 
consumers freedom of choice. I don't believe that OEMs should be 
required to have to sell choice operating systems to their 
customers, but offer technical support to both the developers and 
the consumers. What I mean by this is that if I a customer calls 
into let's say Dell or Gateway computers for information about if 
their computers are compatible with a particular operating system, 
they should have that information, and the information should be 
readily available. Not only is Microsoft guilty of anti-

[[Page 27991]]

competitive behaviour, but the OEMs have helped Microsoft force 
products on consumers, that don't realize that other options are 
available, which has made the consumer believe now that everyone be 
compatible with Microsoft's products. Also the OEMs of computer 
hardware must readily provide information to other Operating System 
developers and be held accountable if they discriminate any 
developer in the market, including Linux and other such developers.
    The truth is that software developers and consumers lose to such 
actions of anti-competitive behaviour that has damaged the computer 
industry as a whole and placed it in the turmoil that it is in now. 
I feel that you will do what is best for the computer industry and 
for the rights of the consumer. The most important thing look out 
for and to protect is our freedom of choice... something Microsoft 
has all but taken from us, the consumer. Thank you for your time and 
I wish you good luck.
    Best Regards...
    Dennis



MTC-00027359

From: Amish Shah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I do not agree with the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ). As I am a 
big advocate of technology and its advancement, I feel that 
Microsoft does nothing but hinder its process. As it has been 
obviously concluded numerous times over, Microsoft has made it very 
difficult for software companies to compete on the same level with 
its anti-competitives tactics. For ANY software company to compete 
with the Windows operating system or Office suite applications it 
would take tremendous dollars (billions most likely) to reach a user 
base of Microsofts level. As I write this email to you, I am using 
Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Outlook Express, I read an article on 
the Internet through Microsoft Internet Explorer, and later tonight 
I will write a paper in Microsoft Word. I can choose not to use 
these software products, but when I wish to work with the rest of 
the world out there electronically, I am left at the moment with 
only one choice of Microsoft. It is very unfortunate.
    Sincerely,
    Amish Shah
    Box 6251
    518 Park Drive
    Boston, MA 02215
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027360

From: Nikesh J. Morarji
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    Microsoft has not at all received the punishment that it is due. 
It is a bully in the marketplace and I for one support any decision 
involving breaking the company or curtailing it's growth into other 
areas. i.e. push it's Xbox machine as a trojan horse into living 
rooms and solidifying Microsoft's control over the end user and the 
marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Nikesh J. Morarji
    [email protected]



MTC-00027361

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:3lpm
Subject: Fwd: Has Your Opinion Been Counted?
    Has Your Opinion Been Counted?
    Earlier this month, you took part in a letter-writing campaign 
to express your opinion of the antitrust settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. We would like to thank you for 
your efforts and make sure that when we assisted you in organizing 
your thoughts on paper, you were completely satisfied that the draft 
letter fully expressed your own views in the matter. If you would 
like any changes, we would be happy to make them now. The public 
comment period on this settlement ends on January 28. The provisions 
of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to all parties 
involved, and go beyond the findings of the Court of Appeals ruling; 
however, the settlement is not guaranteed until after the review 
ends and the District Court determines whether the terms are indeed 
in the public interest. If you would like your opinion to count, now 
is the time to send in your letter! Please send your comments 
directly to the Department of Justice via email or fax no later than 
January 28. If you have already done so, or will do so in the near 
future, please be sure to send a signed copy to the FIN Mobilization 
Office, or simply reply to this email with a short note indicating 
that you have sent your letter.
    Please take action today, to ensure your voice is heard.
    Once again, the Attorney General's contact information is:
    Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 
1-202-616-9937
    Email: [email protected]
    FIN Mobilization Office contact information:
    Fax: 1-800-641-2255
    Email: [email protected]
    Your support is greatly appreciated!
    FIN Mobilization Office



MTC-00027362

From: Nels Christian Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to begin with a recommendation: have some techies find 
out where each comment came from originally and throw out the 5 
trillion or so that come from the microsoft domain. If you don't 
think they'd try to pull something like that, I refer you to http://
news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2102244,00.html .
    I believe that the corporate culture at Microsoft has been and 
shall continue to be one which flaunts its monopoly power over the 
world, and some slap on the wrist will do nothing important. I'm not 
sure which particular alternative solution would be best, but the 
damage they have done to the software industry as a while in the 
past several years has been astonishing. As a result of their 
anticompetitive business practices, an excellent company (Netscape) 
and its product were brought to financial ruin, software prices have 
risen at a rate far greater than inflation to the point where a 
simple operating system and office suite, microsoft windows and 
microsoft office, cost nearly as much as 2 entire computers. 
Additionalliy, they continually ``upgrade'' their office 
suite for no purpose other than to force everyone to pay them extra 
money and they design their product to not be fully compatible with 
previous versions so that as soon as one person purchases it, 
everyone is forced to. I would praise microsoft for its development 
and implementation of new technologies at a rapid rate into their 
operating system, but at the same time they don't seem to have any 
respect for the concerns of us consumers regarding security, 
oftentimes implementing new technologies without sufficient testing, 
leaving systems vulnerable to security exploits. And then, when you 
download the patches (and they refuse sometimes to explain what the 
patches fix), new problems are introduced to a system which was 
perfectly fine. And they can get away with it because they have no 
competition. They are price gouging and under-innovating. Some 
competition needs to be introduced somehow. One interesting proposal 
I heard was break Microsoft into 3 companies all of which have 
rights to all of Microsofts products (windows, office, IE), and then 
allow the free market to reduce prices to a reasonable level, and 
then whichever is the most innovative for the least cost will 
triumph, whereas under the current system every time microsoft 
releases a new anything it triumphes, even if it is worse than the 
prior product (for example, windows ME, which crashed my computer so 
much more than windows 98 that I uninstalled it and put 98 back on). 
Something drastic must be done--or else everyone will be forced 
to learn some archaic operating system like linux simply because 
they can't afford the 10 trillion dollars microsoft is charging per 
copy of Windows.
    Nels Hansen
    Undergraduate at Stanford University, in Stanford, California



MTC-00027363

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:31pm
Subject: MICROSOFE SETTLEMENT
    GENTLEMEN;
    PLEASE LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE. THEY HAVE BEEN HOUNDED 
``ENUF. I HAD TO HAVE SOMEONE PROGRAM MY FIRST COMPUTER AT 
GREAT EXPENSE. NOW WITH WINDOWS, WE CAN ALL RELATE TO EACH OTHER. 
BILL SHOULD HAVE MOVED TO CANADA OR SOMEWHERE. SO OUR GOVT.; 
COULDN'T BOTHER HIM. HE RECOGNIZES THAT WE HAVE TO LET OTHERS DO 
BUSINESS AND HAS MADE CHANGES.
    FRED D. WINTER
    4660 MONTICELLO
    BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77706
    [email protected]

[[Page 27992]]



MTC-00027364

From: Tavis Barr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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. I urge you to not accept the settlement that the Justice 
Department and
    Microsoft have proposed.
    Microsoft has continually abused its control of bottleneck 
facilities-- resources that it currently monopolizes--to 
gain monopolies in new markets. It has used its monopoly in the 
productivity suite market to help perpetuate a monopoly in the 
desktop operating systems market, and it is now attempting to use 
its monopoly in the operating systems market to create a monopoly in 
the web services market that has the potential to be even broader 
than the one it now enjoys.
    A key in opening up these bottleneck facilities is to allow 
third parties--both commercial and non-commercial--to gain 
the ability to create alternatives for Microsoft products and 
thereby prevent Microsoft from stacking one monopoly on top of 
another. This would principally require opening up Microsoft's APIs, 
and providing a strong guarantee that third parties would not be 
subject to patent enfringement lawsuits for writing programs that 
emulate these APIs.
    The proposed settlement allows far too many loopholes to be seen 
as a serious remedy. First, because so many forms of communicatiion 
between computers and their subsystems involve authentication, an 
exemption for not sharing security-related APIs could be interpreted 
broadly by Microsoft as a requirement to share very little. Second, 
the requirement is largely backward-looking: It does very little to 
require Microsoft to publish the APIs for the .NET middleware that 
it is currently using to develop a new monopoly in web services. 
Third, Microsoft can still use End-User License Agreements to 
prevent its own software from running with other people's 
implementations of its APIs. Finally, there is no protection from 
patent-infringement lawsuits for parties that attempt to duplicate 
implementations of these APIs, or even a requirement that Microsoft 
state which API implementations may be subject to patent-protection. 
The lack of such information means that Microsoft can threaten 
patent-infringement lawsuits to clients of its potential competitors 
without providing any specifics as to what the infringement is.
    There are many more flaws in the proposed settlement, but I 
believe the above are enough to generate serious reservations about 
adopting it. I thank you for your time and attention.
    Sincerely,
    Tavis Barr
    Assistant Professor of Economics
    Long Island University
    202 Hoxie Hall
    C.W. Post Campus, 720 Northern Blvd.
    Brookville, NY 11548



MTC-00027365

From: William Moss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Under the provisions of the Tunney Act, I am writing to add my 
voice strongly against the proposed settlement of the case of the 
United States of America vs. Microsoft Corporation (Civil Action No. 
98-1232) as is encouraged. From my perspective, Microsoft's 
anti-competitive practices have almost destroyed innovation in the 
computer field today. No punishment can undo this damage as it is 
now impossible to bring back the competitors that have been forced 
out of business or into other markets. Please consider requiring the 
proprietary standards Microsoft uses to lock developers into their 
technologies to be opened to the public domain (if not the actual 
source code, at least a well documented specification). Though there 
are other problems with the settlement, this omission is one of the 
most glaring to my eyes.
    In summary, the currently proposed settlement between the USA 
and Microsoft is insufficient and should be changed.
    Thank you for considering my comments. I hope this missive 
reaches you in time.
    Mr. William Lorenzo Moss IV
    225 Moss Side Drive, Athens, GA 30607, (706) 548-7273
    3801 West Hayward Court, Tucker GA 30084, (770) 270-9217



MTC-00027366

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff,
    vs. Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
    STATE OF NEW YORK ex. Rel.
    Attorney General ELIOT
    SPITZER, et al.
    Plaintiffs,
    Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
    vs.
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
    Defendant.
    May it please the Court: I am writing to the Court as a 
concerned citizen and member of the Texas Bar who is also an Adjunct 
Professor of Law (Computer Law) at South Texas College of Law in 
Houston, Texas.
    I have observed the proceedings of the Microsoft Antitrust case 
and now, under the provisions of the Tunny Act, I come before the 
Court and pray that the Court considers the following remarks 
regarding the Settlement between the United States Department of 
Justice and Microsoft Corporation (the ``Settlement''), to 
wit:
    1. Microsoft has achieved its monopoly through careful 
manipulation of the network effect. The network effect has been 
discussed in other documents now before the court. Put simply, the 
network effect is present when software developers create software 
for a particular platform which attracts users. More users attract 
more developers who develop more programs which attract still more 
users, and so on. The critical aspect of the network effect is 
communication. The core function of a network, after all, is the 
transfer of information from one entity to another. Communication on 
a network is accomplished through various means, including protocols 
(such as TCP/IP), formats (such as the .doc format for Microsoft 
Word documents), and application programming interfaces 
(``API's''). Microsoft has purposefully devised formats 
and protocols that are difficult to decipher and thus difficult for 
competitors to create software that is interoperable with 
Microsoft's products, thereby encouraging users to avoid non-
Microsoft products.
    Microsoft adroitly exploited the network effect to protect and 
extend its monopoly, in an illegal manner, by careful selection, 
protection, and imposition of proprietary communication formats, 
protocols, and API's. Microsoft protects its formats and protocols 
with abusive copyright and patent legal actions against competitors.
    2. Because Microsoft illegally maintains its monopoly by 
manipulation of the network effect, any remedy imposed on Microsoft 
must address Microsoft's ability to manipulate the network effect. 
Competition cannot be restored unless and until Microsoft is 
precluded from manipulating the network effect in an illegal manner 
that maintains or raises the barrier of entry for competitors.
    The Settlement is completely silent as to formats, and is almost 
completely silent as to protocols and API's. Moreover, where the 
settlement is not silent, the loopholes that have been afforded to 
Microsoft will render those portions of the remedy impotent. For 
example, in Part III (Prohibited Conduct) of the Settlement, 
Microsoft need only provide an API set for Windows XP, Service Pack 
1, and only for the API's used by Microsoft middlware. What if 
Microsoft declares, as they have in the past, that Internet Explorer 
is a part of the operating system and not part of middleware, and 
thus Microsoft's API's to Internet Explorer remain unpublished. This 
tactic could be used for any program that Microsoft desires, and 
gives Microsoft the ability to circumvent the remedies of the 
Settlement.
    3. Microsoft must not be allowed to use patents to circumvent 
any settlement or court sanctions. The Court should include within 
the remedy a provision that precludes Microsoft from asserting 
intellectual property rights that attenuate or otherwise defeat any 
provision of the remedy.
    4. Eliminate the OEM restriction. This is considered in the 
Settlement with the Department of Justice. However, the language 
used in the Settlement Agreement leaves wide latitude for Microsoft 
to punish OEMs for displeasing Microsoft, simply by saying that the 
sanctions imposed on the particular OEM by Microsoft is for another 
reason.
    5. Portions of the Settlement prejudice Open Source software 
development -- Microsoft's only real competition. For example, 
in Part III(E), Microsoft is required to allow third parties to have 
access to the Windows Operating System Product for the ``sole 
purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, 
on

[[Page 27993]]

reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.'' However, those terms 
struck by Microsoft would certainly include a monetary royalty, 
which would be prohibitively expensive for any open source project 
that would otherwise compete with a Windows Operating System 
Product.
    6. There must be a ``fast track'' procedure for 
settling disputes arising from Microsoft's behavior after the Court 
has issued its remedy. The Court should take a cue from the 
dissenting nine states had appoint some type of Magistrate who can 
make decisions and impose sanctions on Microsoft before the damage 
is done. Microsoft has a well established history of delaying 
implementation of remedies until a technological circumvention for 
those remedies has taken hold in the market. In other words, 
Microsoft has in the past made technological changes in their 
products that defeat conduct remedies and used tactical legal 
maneuvers to delay rescission of the remedy-defeating conduct until 
it is too late for the market restore the previous level of 
competition.
    7. What about punishment for ill-got gains? Can we allow 
Microsoft to break our laws over the course of many years and pay no 
fine? Is Microsoft to be allowed to retain the enormous sum of money 
($34 Billion USD in cash alone) that it has received through the 
inordinately high prices of its famously poor quality products? Is 
the Court going to let crime pay and provide an example to future 
Microsofts that violating the Sherman Act does indeed pay?
    Conclusion: As the Settlement does not address adequately 
Microsoft's ability to affect the network effect, and thus cannot 
force Microsoft to change its behavior. Moreover, there is no 
punishment of Microsoft for past wrongdoing, and thus the remedy 
does not serve as a deterrent to future wrongdoing by Microsoft or 
those who would copy its behavior.
    Consequently, the Settlement is not in the public interest and 
should be struck down by the Court.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Ronald L. Chichester



MTC-00027367

From: Michael Marking
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hash: SHA1
Sunday, 2002.01.27
Renata B Hesse
Antitrust Division
U S Department of Justice
by e-mail to [email protected]
    Dear Renata B Hesse:
    I am opposed to the terms of the proposed settlement 
(``Stipulation'') in United States of America vs Microsoft 
Corporation. (Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)) There are many 
faults in the terms of the Stipulation. I will briefly list some of 
the most egregious:
    (1) The penalties proposed to be paid Microsoft Corporation for 
past actions are wholly inadequate when viewed against the scope and 
severity of Defendant's past actions. Although it is impractical for 
the most part to attempt to restore conditions to those existing 
prior to the unlawful conduct of the Defendant, Microsoft will be 
allowed to retain almost all its unlawfully-acquired profits, and no 
attempt is being made to compensate past or existing customers and 
competitors in any way for their injuries. One of the most 
profitable violations of the law in history is not being redressed.
    (2) The development of open-source and free software is one of 
the most innovative, vital, and fastest-growing segments of the 
information services industry. It is also (by Microsoft's own words) 
the strongest threat to their monopoly. By the inclusion of terms 
allowing Microsoft to avoid licensing APIs and other information to 
non-business entities, the Stipulation actually strengthens 
Microsoft's monopoly. As such it works to achieve the opposite of 
what is ostensibly desired.
    (3) The details of the terms allow Microsoft to delay releasing 
important information (such as APIs) until their value has been 
considerably reduced, while allowing its own middleware and 
application developers to use them early. This permits Microsoft to 
continue to to act in the very way which is contrary to the law, to 
use its monopoly in one market to further its own dominance in 
another.
    Microsoft's own developers in middleware and applications areas 
have a distinct advantage over those of competitors, allowing 
Microsoft to continue to use its monopoly in one market to unfairly 
compete in other markets. This Stipulation does almost nothing 
practical to remedy that situation. APIs should be published as soon 
as the middleware and applications developers have access, not after 
they have made use of them.
    (4) Some of the terms are vague. For example, their is no 
specificity with regard to the level of detail required for 
documentation of interfaces and other technical information. 
Although such matters are sometimes difficult to specify, in other 
agreements it has sometimes worked well to make comparisons. (The 
Stipulation might specify documentation quality, detail, and 
thoroughness equivalent to that found in some other specific 
documents. The comparative documents might even be certain ones from 
the Microsoft Press.) Similarly, there are no definitions of 
releases or other critical business and engineering activities and 
events. Is an ``evaluation copy'' or ``test 
copy'' given in advance of a beta to be excluded from the 
requirements of the Stipulation?
    (5) The ability of Microsoft to enter without restriction into 
joint venture or joint development agreements is an easy way for 
them to circumvent some of the other restrictions.
    (6) Microsoft is free to use combinations of the various 
loopholes (such as the joint venture or development clause in 
Paragraph G) to put development of critical sections of the code out 
of the reach of the restrictions given in the stipulation, folding 
those technologies back into Microsoft when convenient for them. 
Through back-licensing and option agreements, the requirement to 
publish APIs in a timely fashion will have been avoided.
    (7) The Stipulation focuses on desktop computers. However, 
Microsoft and most of the rest of the industry feel that future 
growth will be more in areas of entertainment, networks, and 
embedded systems. Since there is an apparent surrender on the part 
of the United States regarding past unlawful actions and profits, a 
forward- looking agreement should at least consider the way 
Microsoft's business will operate in the future.
    In summary, the Stipulation seeks to bypass the law, 
legitimizing conduct which violates the anti-trust laws. It is 
little more than a sell-out.
    Normally, I would think that the short (five-year) term of the 
Stipulation is too short to be effective. However, under the 
circumstances, this agreement may make matters worse rather than 
better, so--if it is permitted at all--perhaps it should 
expire after only a year. At that time, the Court should review how 
well the terms of the Stipulation have worked to further the 
interests of the people of the United States.
    Sincerely yours,
    Michael Marking
    Bionic Buffalo Corporation
    2533 North Carson Street, Suite 1884
    Carson City, Nevada 89706-0147
    [email protected]



MTC-00027368

From: Bert (038) Vivian Goff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This e-mail is to express my strong concern with and disapproval 
of the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the government. I 
urge that much stronger constraints be placed upon Microsoft than 
now proposed. I am especially concerned about the monopoly situation 
with pre-loading Windows on virtually all Intel systems sold. There 
should be substantial unbundling of the software from the hardware 
so that both consumers and business have a meaningful choice.
    The situation with Office software is not much better, but here 
I think the problem has more to do with Microsoft's control and 
frequent changing of the file formats. I recommend that the solution 
include public, free documentation of all file formats BEFORE 
release of any office product upgrades. In addition, there should be 
clear public documentation of ALL operating system (Windows) 
functions used by Office.
    Hopefully a settlement will address these issues and ensure a 
much more open marketplace in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Bert Goff
    Stoneridge Systems Consulting
    56 Linda Lane
    Bethel, CT 06801
    e-Mail: [email protected]
    voice: (203) 205-0150



MTC-00027369

From: Daryl L. Biberdorf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse

[[Page 27994]]

Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: opposition to proposed Department of Justice settlement with 
Microsoft
    I am writing today to oppose the proposed Department of Justice 
settlement with Microsoft. I have been a professional programmer and 
database administrator for approximately twelve years. I am the lead 
author of the book PowerBuilder 5 How-To, published in 1996 by the 
Waite Group Press (ISBN 1571690557). I have two primary problems 
with the settlement. The first problem is that the requirement to 
publish Microsoft APIs (III.D in the proposed settlement) could be 
interpreted to mean that the interfaces may be made available solely 
to commercial entities. The list of recipients of the published APIs 
includes ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs. None of the definitions 
of these terms refers specifically to individuals. As a programmer 
(possibly as a hobbyist with a new idea working in my spare time), I 
do not believe any of these terms requires Microsoft to publish 
their APIs to me as a specific individual.
    Microsoft should be compelled to publish their APIs, period. I 
should not be required to declare myself an ``entity'' 
(which usually implies a business entity such as a partnership or 
corporation) in order to study Microsoft's APIs.
    The second problem is more serious. The proposed settlement 
requires Microsoft to publish details of their communication 
protools (III.E). However, this requirement is completely negated in 
III.J.1, which explicitly ALLOWS Microsoft to refuse to publish APIs 
involving encryption in numerous forms (anti-piracy, network 
security, operating system security, etc.)
    There are scant few communication protocols in this wired age 
that do NOT require security or encryption or both. Basic protocols 
like SMTP (the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, used for transferring 
Internet email) can require senders to provide a username and 
password or to have an identifiable domain name. Can Microsoft avoid 
publishing their email protocols (or entensions to standard 
protocols like SMTP) simply by claiming ``security''? The 
next generation network protocol in use on the Internet, IPv6, 
offers encryption as a CORE component.
    That is, you cannot use IPv6 without encrypting the connection. 
Microsoft can use III.J.1 to restrict publication of a CORE network 
API under the claim of ``security''.
    Additionally, Microsoft has modified existing STANDARD protocols 
in such a way as to prevent interoperability with other products. 
Perhaps the best example is Kerberos, a system of authenticating 
users securely. Originally developed at the Massachusetts Institute 
of Technology, it has become a standard technology in security-
conscious implementations. All UNIX vendors, Linux, and several 
database vendors offer Kerberos implementations that easily 
integrate and work together. Microsoft's implementation of Kerberos 
in Windows 2000 was an ``extension'' of Kerberos that did 
NOT interoperate at all. Can Microsoft prevent the integration of 
their product with other products in use at a site simply by 
claiming ``security''?
    Microsoft has repeatedly altered the Windows file- and print-
server protocol, SMB, in order to foil the freely available Samba 
implementation. SMB networking authenticates users, thus involving 
``security''. Samba is offered by a group of individuals 
working together across the globe. They are not an easily-
recognizable ``entity''. Thus, the two problems I have 
discussed come together and make it impossible for the Samba team to 
deliver a product enabling non-Microsoft systems to interoperate 
with Microsoft products. This product is popular and effective. No 
wonder, since it is significantly cheaper to implement that 
Microsoft's solution. Does anyone doubt that, based on their 
previous history of monopolistic practices, Microsoft would seek to 
withhold details of Windows networking APIs on these grounds?
    To recap, I oppose this settlement because it fails to protect 
individuals'' ability to learn and study Microsoft's APIs and 
because Microsoft will almost certainly refuse to publish APIs that 
involve ``security'' in the broadest sense possible. This 
settlement should be re-worked to remedy these problems.
    Finally, I agree with the points made by Dan Kegel, whose 
comments can be viewed at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html. I 
add my support to his words.
    Sincerely,
    Daryl L. Biberdorf
    2117 Larkspur Drive
    Carrollton, Texas 75010
    972.543.7535 office
    214.731.8496 home
    [email protected]



MTC-00027371

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    McLaughlin Vivienne
    HC. 82 Box 49
    Marlinton, WV 24954



MTC-00027372

From: Steve Golowich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Antitrust Division:
    Under the Tunney Act, I would like to comment on the proposed 
final judgment (PFJ) in United States v. Microsoft. The PFJ is not 
in the public interest. Of the many reasons why this is so, I would 
like to emphasize the fact that the PFJ does too little to erode the 
Applications Barrier to Entry. In particular, the PFJ does nothing 
to prevent Microsoft's use of undocumented proprietary file formats 
as barriers to entry in various markets. In my own daily work, I 
often find it impossible to avoid using Microsoft products to read 
files created by Microsoft Office and sent to me by others. This 
situation must be remedied by forcing Microsoft to publish all of 
their proprietary file formats, and more generally, any proprietary 
protocols necessary to inter-operate with Microsoft products. This 
issue will grow in importance with Microsoft's attempt to dominate 
the internet with their .NET initiative.
    Sincerely,
    Steven E. Golowich, Ph.D.
    41 Havenwood Drive
    Livingston, NJ 07039
    973-758-9249



MTC-00027373

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:38pm
Subject: Support For Microsoft To the Department of Justice,
    With much respect, I ask the court to rule in Microsoft's favor. 
A free society means a free and unregulated economy. Microsoft is 
morally justified in conducting business in any way it wants, as 
long as no fraud is committed.
    Success should be praised, not punished in a free society
    Marc Diamante
    Pembroke Pines, FL



MTC-00027374

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I am upset about the recent settlement between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft (PFJ). The PFJ does nothing to stop 
Microsoft from operating as a monopoly. Second, the settlement does 
not punish Microsoft for clearly violating anti-trust laws in the 
past. By letting Microsoft get away with its retaliation tactics, 
bolting schemes, and attacks on Java a terrible standard is being 
set. All these tactics lower competition in a suppossedly free 
market and also limit softward standards. Finally, the PFJ does not 
provide an effective enforcement mechanism for the weak restrictions 
it does implement.
    I would request that you do your best to overturn this 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Tania Butler
    248 Lincoln Street,
    Lexington MA
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 27995]]



MTC-00027375

From: Tom Gwozdz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement against Microsoft. It is 
my opinion that the settlement is inadequate in providing 
reparations for Microsoft's actions, and in preventing Microsoft 
from commiting such actions in the future.
    The settlement does nothing to prevent Microsoft from continuing 
in its abuse of its monopoly. Futher, it does nothing to help repair 
the damage that Microsoft has done to the software and computer 
industries. It is my opinion that a new settlement should be drafted 
to address these issues.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Gwozdz



MTC-00027376

From: Christopher Scott Archibald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the way i see what the settlement, your just giveing Microsoft 
more power than before. They get to stay the way they are, and now 
as there punishment they have you donate computer using there 
software and to school and give support. Isn't the whole case about 
how Microsoft became a Monopoliy. And now your giving them a chance 
to make it bigger. What i see happening is Microsoft getting bigger 
with the help of the US goverment. And how can we turst are 
goverment when they help Monopoliys.
    Christopher Scott ``Sugarbear'' Archibald



MTC-00027377

From: DHAVAL PARIKH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TO the Court
    My opinion about the case of U.S. vs. Microsoft anti-trust is 
that the act of monopoly done by the Microsoft is a serious concern 
to the industry, users and the overall growth of the system. Today 
Microsoft is one of the largest industries producing almost all 
verity of applications and operating systems.
    My Points against Microsoft
    The settlement will make only temporary difference, as it has no 
firm and fundamental action to solve the case.
    The harm is that it is preventing the new companies to rise by 
its uncompetitive price and product, a reaction of one company as a 
whole.
    Microsoft providing unnecessary software's (like Internet 
Explorer and other application programs) with its operation system 
has result in loss of many small web-based software companies trying 
to grow.
    Splitting of the company is the best option and in best interest 
of the people and new companies.
    Microsoft releases test version of its operating system for free 
or nominal cost and thereby capturing the market letting no other 
operating system to spread in market.
    Microsoft has a great name in the so defined .com Internet 
Company and now .NET, which is considered to be controlling the 
whole e-commerce. But it is not a wise act for one company to 
control nor is it possible to do so. It will result in overall 
disaster and prevail to Internet to flourish in all aspects.
    By ending my viewpoint I request the court to consider all 
aspects in the betterment of people and industry and reinforce the 
facts for positive results in future. sincerely



MTC-00027378

From: Jason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division:
    Leave Microsoft alone. They have never used force, the threat of 
force, or fraud, against their customers or competitors. Government 
prosecution of any person or group for any other reason constitutes 
an act of despotism. And that is exactly what the Sherman and 
Clayton Acts have institutionalized: despotism.
    The government does not know what's best for Microsoft, it's 
competitors, or me--the consumer of products in the markets 
Microsoft has entered. Everyone has the fundamental right to keep 
and dispose of the products of their labor. This means me, and this 
means Microsoft. If Microsoft wants to ``bundle'' its web 
browser on Windows, but not Netscape's browser, that is Microsoft's 
right. If Microsoft wishes to provide Original Equipment 
Manufacturers with Windows only when those OEMs agree to refrain 
from including a competitor's software, that is Microsoft's right. 
If other people or firms do not like Microsoft's manner of business 
conduct, they are free to refrain from doing business with 
Microsoft.
    Government imposition on the non-coercive business policies of 
private citizens and companies represents a violation of the 
inalienable individual rights recognized and guaranteed by the 
United States Constitution. Antitrust is an immoral, impractical 
system. Leave Microsoft alone.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Matthew Lewis



MTC-00027379

From: Michael Jochimsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a former employee of Microsoft who was part of the 
engineering effort behind IE, I have followed the United States vs. 
Microsoft case with great interest. Now that a Proposed Final 
Judgment has been filed, I would like to offer my comments as part 
of the public commentary provided for by the Tunney Act.
    In order for the Proposed Final Judgment to meet the standards 
of a remedies decree in an antitrust case, it must free the market 
from anticompetitive conduct by the defendant, terminate the 
defendant's illegal monopoly, deny the defendant the fruits of their 
illegal actions, and prevent the defendant from abusing their 
monopoly in the future. I will briefly examine the how the Proposed 
Final Judgment addresses each of these requirements. A variety of 
anticompetitive conduct was found in the course of the trial. This 
included restrictive OEM contracts and restrictive and exclusionary 
dealings with internet access providers and software developers. 
Microsoft also engaged in a campaign to mislead, confuse, and 
threaten software developers in an attempt to constrain Java, and 
illegally tied their Internet Explorer (IE) browser software to the 
Windows Operating System. The Proposed Final Judgment attempts to 
address the restrictive OEM contracts by constraining the terms 
Microsoft can use in OEM contracts. However, it only addresses a 
segment of the OEM market, that being the 20 largest OEMs. Smaller 
OEMs, including local and regional OEMs, are not covered by the 
terms of the agreement and remain subject to prejudicial pricing and 
uncertain access to Microsoft's operating systems. This is thus at 
best a partial remedy, and leaves a significant portion of the OEM 
market vulnerable to strong arm tactics.
    Attempts are also made by the Proposed Final Judgment to 
eliminate exclusionary contracts with OEMs, internet access 
providers and software developers. However, an exception states that 
Microsoft may enter into fixed percentage contracts if 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'' (III.G.1.) Given 
that zero cost competitors exist today (many Linux distributions 
come to mind), this clause renders the prohibition effectively void.
    While some attempt is made by the Proposed Final Judgment to 
prevent Microsoft from threatening software developers, no effort is 
made to prevent a campaign of the sort used to confuse and mislead 
developers considering Java. To this day we continue to see 
publicity efforts to marginalize Java, and we are seeing another 
such campaign underway to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) 
about the viability of Linux (an alternative operating system). The 
Proposed Final Judgment does nothing to constrain this behavior. The 
limitations of the Proposed Final Judgment can be seen quite clearly 
when one considers the means used by Microsoft to marginalize Java 
on the desktop. As described in the Competitive Impact Statement 
filed with the court, Microsoft pressured third parties not to 
support cross-platform Java, used technological means to maximize 
the difficulty with which Java applications could be ported from 
Windows to other platforms, and used other anticompetitive measures 
to discourage developers from creating cross-platform Java 
applications. While some of the more explicit means used (payoffs to 
keep applications on a single platform) are prohibited, most of the 
means used to stifle Java could still be used under the Proposed 
Final Judgment. This is a clear failure to address the very methods 
which were used to uphold Microsoft's monopoly.
    In order to eliminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly, the Proposed 
Final Judgment ensures OEMs of the ability to include alternate 
operating systems on personal computers without fear of retaliation.

[[Page 27996]]

However, this merely opens one distribution channel which had been 
illegally closed by exclusionary contracts. It does nothing to 
address other ways in which Microsoft's monopoly has been 
maintained.
    Microsoft has also maintained its monopoly by maintaining a high 
Applications Barrier to Entry, as described in the Competitive 
Impact Statement. One way to reduce this barrier is to provide a 
middleware solution which allows developers to write to an 
intermediate layer rather than to the underlying operating system. 
This is the approach taken by Java, and several other computer 
languages have taken similar approaches (Perl, Tcl, Python, and Ruby 
are examples). Another alternative is to duplicate the entire 
Windows API (application programming interface), allowing programs 
written for Windows to run elsewhere.
    The Proposed Final Judgment attempts to require non-
discriminatory documentation of the Windows API, but it only covers 
that portion of the API used to communicate with middleware by 
Microsoft applications. There is no requirement to provide non-
discriminatory documentation for portions of the API which are used 
by non-Microsoft middleware, but not by Microsoft middleware. 
Further, no requirement is made that the complete API be documented, 
which means that Microsoft is under no obligation to aid an attempt 
to duplicate the API in its entirety. Furthermore, section III.J. 
explicitly permits Microsoft to exclude portions of the API which 
relate to systems concerned with authentication, encryption, digital 
rights management, anti-piracy, anti-virus, and software licensing. 
These shortcomings effectively cripple any attempt to duplicate the 
Windows API, and also serve to constrain the effectiveness of non-
Microsoft middleware systems. Consequently, the Applications Barrier 
to Entry will remain high.
    The Proposed Final Judgment also attempts to force the non-
discriminatory documentation of all native communication protocols 
used to communicate with the Windows operating system. Again, 
though, we find the security exception of section III.J. crippling 
the intent. By simply requiring the protocol to begin with an 
authentication exchange, the protocol can be barred from non-
Microsoft use. An analogy would be the case of a locked room, where 
the contents of the room are described in full, but the key is not 
available. Microsoft has already begun moving in this direction with 
the Passport service in the NET initiative.
    An additional barrier which exists for competing operating 
systems are the file formats used by Microsoft applications. If 
these formats were publicly available, then non-Microsoft 
applications could attempt to provide the application functionality 
on alternate operating systems, thereby increasing the 
attractiveness of alternate operating systems. Without a public file 
format, however, users remain locked into their existing 
applications, and the applications must move to alternate operating 
systems. Given that Microsoft is the single largest application 
software vendor in the world, we can expect no movement in this 
field. This is not addressed at all by the Proposed Final Judgment.
    Finally, nothing in the Proposed Final Judgment would prevent 
Microsoft from making use of forward incompatibilities to frustrate 
middleware competitors. This tactic was used against DR-DOS when 
Microsoft moved from Windows 3.0 to Windows 3.1. At that time, 
Windows itself was middleware of a sort, sitting on top of the MS-
DOS operating system. DR-DOS was a work-alike operating system which 
implemented all the functionality of MS-DOS, and which also would 
allow Windows 3.0 to run on top of it. When Windows 3.1 was 
released, it continued to run on MS-DOS, but when run on DR-DOS it 
mysteriously failed. Whether Windows 3.1 actually checked for the 
existence of DR-DOS, or merely made use of undocumented APIs within 
MS-DOS, the effect was the same. With the exploding popularity of 
Windows, DR-DOS shortly exited the marketplace. This same technique 
could be used to ``break'' popular middleware going 
forward from one version of Windows to another.
    The fruits of Microsoft's illegal conduct have been continued 
dominance of the personal operating system market, as well as new 
dominance in the web browser market and marginalization of Java as a 
viable middleware solution. At the very least a denial of these 
benefits should promote non-Microsoft browser and middleware 
solutions and constrain further attempts by Microsoft to grow in 
these new markets. However, the Proposed Final Judgment does no more 
than make alternate browsers and middleware possible (and 
significant flaws exist in that attempt, as described above). The 
inertia of the marketplace will likely leave IE as the dominant 
browser for the forseeable future, as the cost to merely compete 
with it would be prohibitive for all but the largest software 
companies, many of whom are fighting defensive battles elsewhere.
    The Proposed Final Judgment also makes no attempt to restore 
Java as a middleware alternative, nor does it promote any other non-
Microsoft middleware systems. Nor is Microsoft itself constrained 
from further middleware development. The C# language and common 
language runtime (CLR) specified in Microsoft's .NET initiative 
match many of the middleware features of Java. It is expected that 
Microsoft will use this to attempt to further marginalize Java as a 
middleware solution. Yet no mention of .NET is made in the Proposed 
Final Judgment, even in its definition of Microsoft middleware.
    Several provisions are made within the Proposed Final Judgment 
to prevent Microsoft from again abusing its monopoly position with 
regards to middleware. However, absolutely no provisions are made to 
prevent leveraging the monopoly to expand into other markets, such 
as server operating systems, handheld computers, and game consoles. 
Yet these are all markets that Microsoft is actively trying to 
expand into, and they are already using their monopoly in desktop 
operating systems to leverage the server market. Unless the proposed 
remedy delimits the extent that Microsoft's monopoly can and cannot 
be used when moving into new markets, we can expect to find another 
antitrust suit wending its way through the courts within a few 
years. The Proposed Final Judgment also delineates procedures for 
enforcement. Key to enforcement is the appointment of a technical 
committee of three individuals, one to be chosen by the plaintiffs, 
one to be chosen by the defendant, and one to be chosen by these two 
individuals after their selection. This seems contrary to common 
sense, however. It is unusual for an organization convicted of 
wrongdoing to be allowed an equal say in the choice of personnel to 
enforce compliance. While Microsoft should be allowed to object on 
reasonable grounds, it seems to me that the selection of the 
individuals charged with ensuring compliance should remain strictly 
with the Enforcement Authority, which under the Proposed Final 
Judgment would be the Plaintiffs.
    Furthermore, the technical committee and their staff are 
strictly prohibited in their communications outside of Microsoft and 
the Plaintiffs. Thus, they shall disappear from public sight for the 
duration of their duties, and the only communications which they 
will make will come through the Plaintiffs or Microsoft. As a member 
of the public I can see no need for such a gag order to be placed 
upon the technical committee. Certainly they will have access to 
confidential documents and trade secrets, but this restriction of 
all public communication strikes me as excessive.
    Moreover, whether or not Microsoft still has a monopoly, or is 
still abusing its monopoly, the Proposed Final Judgment will 
terminate in seven years. This even if Microsoft engages in a 
pattern of willful violation of the Proposed Final Judgment. A hard 
limit of this sort begs to be abused as the end of the term nears, 
and we may well find ourselves back in the courtroom once again. The 
Proposed Final Judgment manages to check Microsoft on some fronts, 
but does not get to the core of the problem. Some of the 
anticompetitive conduct exercised by Microsoft is prohibited, but 
some remains. Rather than removing the monopoly, it allows it to 
continue, and may in fact allow new barriers to be raised preventing 
erosion. Microsoft is not significantly penalized for their abuses 
in the past, and in fact are allowed to retain their dominant 
position in the web browser market. The means used to deflect Java 
are not addressed, and .NET is ignored as an important new 
middleware product. Microsoft is not prevented from leveraging their 
monopoly to extend into other markets, as they are currently doing 
in an attempt to dominate the server operating system market. In 
conclusion, the Proposed Final Judgment fails to meet the standards 
of an antitrust case remedies decree, and as a result fails to serve 
the public interest.
    Michael Jochimsen



MTC-00027380

From: Tom Bryan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am disappointed with the provisions outlined in the 
``Stipulation and Revised Proposed Final Judgment'' in 
United States v.

[[Page 27997]]

Microsoft Corp., Civil No. 98-1232. After reading Judge 
Jackson's findings of fact in this case, I had expected a much 
stricter remedy.
    I am a professional software engineer and a computer hobbyist. I 
use 4 different operating systems almost every day, and only one of 
those is a Microsoft operating system. I program in several cross-
platform (i.e., the same program runs unmodified on different 
operating systems) computer languages, including Java, Python, and 
Perl. Because Microsoft has a monopoly on PC operating systems, I 
must always consider how my programs will interoperate with 
Microsoft's operating system and the applications that Microsoft 
bundles with its operating system in an abuse of its operating 
system monopoly. I am extremely concerned by the stifling of good, 
innovative ideas by Microsoft's monopoly.
    In its current form, the ``Stipulation and Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment'' does not appear to directly address 
Microsoft's business practices that lead to its conviction for 
abusing its monopoly power in the PC operating system market. 
Microsoft has been able to leverage its operating system to force 
its applications as ``de facto'' standards. The only ways 
to prevent Microsoft from continuing to abuse its monopoly in this 
way are to force it to produce complete documentation of its file 
formats and APIs or to forbid Microsoft from bundling any 
application with its operating system. The first option would permit 
competitors to create solutions that interoperate with Microsoft's 
products and operating system. Users could choose these competing 
products if they desired because they would still be able to 
exchange documents and connect their systems to systems running 
Microsoft's operating systems and applications. The second option 
would force Microsoft's application developers to compete directly 
with other application developers to sell products to run on 
Microsoft's operating system. The second option would be difficult 
to enforce without splitting Microsoft into multiple companies.
    Although the proposed final judgment contains provisions 
requiring the release of documentation, non-commercial entities seem 
to be ignored in the list of parties who might request the 
documentation. Since several of the most viable competitors to 
Microsoft's operating system monopoly (e.g., GNU/Linux, GNU/HURD, 
and FreeBSD) are developed by individuals in a volunteer or non-
commercial capacity, I fear that Microsoft will use the exclusions 
in the proposed final judgment to stifle competition from these 
developers.
    Many businesses that do not directly use one of these operating 
systems still use software and middleware developed for one of these 
operating systems in their commercial products. For example, my 
company's software requires a product developed by volunteers called 
SAMBA to share files with Microsoft operating systems. If the SAMBA 
developers were unable to access appropriate API documentation from 
Microsoft, it would cripple of the functionality of my application.
    I also program for a non-profit organization in my free time. I 
am concerned that this organization will not be able to access the 
documentation it needs from Microsoft in developing its software. 
Excluding non-commercial entities from accessing documentation of 
Microsoft file formats, communication protocols, etc. is an 
unacceptable restriction that would place non-profit organizations 
and volunteer programmers at an unfair disadvantage when attempting 
to interact with Microsoft's operating system. It would also stifle 
some of the products that are crucial in the current competition to 
Microsoft's operating system.
    As a user of the GNU/Linux PC operating system, I would like the 
remedy to 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. Since Microsoft has 
a monopoly on PC operating systems, many hardware vendors only 
release their specifications to Microsoft. To further competition to 
this operating system monopoly, others need hardware specifications 
to develop competing solutions. Coupling Microsoft's hardware 
certification with a requirement to make the hardware specifications 
openly available would put pressure on hardware manufacturers to 
foster competition in the PC operating system market.
    I find the current proposed final judgment in this case to be 
completely unacceptable. I feel that the Department of Justice is 
permitting a company that was convicted of abusing its monopoly in 
my industry to return to the same abusive business practices. I see 
no provision to prevent Microsoft from bundling applications with 
its operating system, which would seem to be the most logical remedy 
since it was originally charged with unfairly bundling a browser 
with its operating system. Although the remedy contains provisions 
to require the release of documentation by Microsoft, those 
provisions contain too many loop holes that permit Microsoft to 
exclude the competitors it fears the most, such as the developers of 
the GNU/Linux operating system and supporting software. I would like 
to see these deficiencies in the proposed remedy corrected.
    Tom Bryan
    Senior Software Engineer
    Itron, Inc.



MTC-00027381

From: Dea Biberdorf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: opposition to Microsoft settlement
    I would like to write to oppose the Microsoft settlement with 
the Department of Justice. I oppose this settlement because no part 
of this document requires Microsoft to publish their proprietary 
file formats. Without a complete knowledge of the format it 
impossible for competing products to even IMPORT files from 
Microsoft products properly. I cannot open a Word document in 
OpenOffice and expect it to work. There are simply too many details 
that Microsoft does not publish. The original findings of fact in 
this case note that these proprietary formats are part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry. This settlement does not help in 
addressing this problem.
    Sincerely,
    Dea L. Biberdorf
    2117 Larkspur Drive
    Carrollton, Texas 75010
    214.731.8496
    [email protected]



MTC-00027382

From: High Mobley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello. My name is High Mobley, and I am a systems and network 
administrator in Athens, GA. I am writing to tell you that I find 
the currently proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case to 
be insufficient. I believe that it does little or nothing to 
actually punish Microsoft for its illegal monopolistic abuses of 
which it has been found guilty. In my mind, Microsoft should not 
only be punished for its past monpolistic abuses, but should also be 
prevented from the same and similar abuses in the future.
    The currently proposed settlement attempts to restrain Microsoft 
from committing future abuses of its monopoly power. However, it 
seems that there are simply too many loopholes that, based on its 
past actions, I feel certain Microsoft will be eager to take 
advantage of.
    In order to encourage Microsoft to truly change its abusive 
behaviors, I think that there should be strong penalties levied 
against it for the abuses that brought about the current legal suit. 
Microsoft's offer to buy computers for underfunded schools is a bad 
idea because it would allow Microsoft to gain a stronger foothold in 
the minds of today's schoolkids, who will become tomorrow's business 
managers and IT directors. Why let Microsoft reward themselves? I do 
think that the company RedHat had a wonderful idea that Microsoft 
would give money for computer hardware only, while Redhat will 
donate operating system and application software, and provide free 
software upgrades in the future as well.
    In order to ensure that Microsoft not repeat its past mistakes, 
I would like to see strong limits upon its ability to sell and 
market its products in ways that allow it to exert control over 
other businesses in the marketplace. Certainly requiring open API 
documentation is an ideal method to accomplish this, except that it 
could be rather difficult to enforce. This is a difficult situation 
to create easily enforceable remedies for! Perhaps splitting the 
company into three separate and wholly independent companies is not 
such a bad idea after all. Each company would be an exact replica of 
the current Microsoft, with Windows, Office, etc. in their stables. 
Then let competition take over from there.
    You have a very tough row to hoe! My best wishes to you all in 
the DOJ who are working on this case. Keep up the good fight and

[[Page 27998]]

know that the American public appreciates your every effort to bring 
about remedies which benefit the general marketplace.
    High Mobley
    Network Specialist
    Advantage BHS
    Athens, GA



MTC-00027383

From: David W
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/27/02 11:43pm
Subject: microsoft anti-trust case
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
    Dear Mr President and U.S. Department of Justice,
    I would like to express my opinion concerning the Microsoft 
anti-trust case. Microsoft's use of its operating systems to gain 
customers for its web browser, Internet Explorer, instead of 
Netscape, violates the anti-trust act. When a buyer purchases a non-
Macintosh computer, a Windows operating system is included. Bundled 
with this operating system is Windows web browser Internet Explorer. 
Because Windows is the main operating system used in America, and 
Internet Explorer is included with it, Netscape is not given a very 
large available market. Microsoft should not be allowed to use its 
almost complete monopoly of the operating system market to gain a 
monopoly of the web browsing market. Although Microsoft has been 
sued by many state justice departments, this issue has not been 
resolved.
    Microsoft's payoff of the state justice departments was not a 
fair punishment for their actions.
    The small amount of money Microsoft agreed to pay was nothing 
compared to their large profits.
    Their agreement to follow antitrust regulations without state 
interference is ineffective because there is no way to monitor 
whether or not they are following through with their agreement. 
Examples of monopolies and trusts that were created illegally can 
also be seen in history.
    One example of a trust that was illegal was John D. 
Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company. Rockefeller used his company's 
resources to buy out his competition. As he reported to a 
congressional committee investigating trusts, or industrial 
combinations, he felt that industrial combinations were a good 
thing. One main difference between Rockefeller and Bill Gates is 
that Rockefeller realized that industrial combinations could have a 
large amount of power which could be abused. He also realized that 
there would need to be some amount of ``state supervision, not 
of a character to hamper industries.''
    AOL Time Warner's suit against Microsoft for Netscape's loss of 
income should be allowed to continue in that Microsoft abused its 
power by closing the web browser market. The state settlements that 
Microsoft made should be reconsidered, and the government should 
continue its investigation into Microsoft's operation system 
monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    David Woolsey
    8th Grade Student at The Harker School,
    San Jose, California



MTC-00027384

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wanted to second this letter which was sent previously. I also 
am in the high tech industry and see how Microsoft out maneuvers the 
legal processes to dominate the market in any way possible. Any 
resolution which provides more exposure for Microsoft products is 
meaningless. A user spends significant amounts of effort becoming 
familiar with their operating system of choice and the potential 
expense of changing systems has never been adequately appreciated.
    In addition to this, rather than repeat anothers eloquent 
statements I will just voice my approval and copy Kasten's email 
below.
    Thank you for your time,
Douglas Rusch
TO: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
FROM: Scott Kasten
2120 Manor Dr. Apt 116
Lexington, KY 40502
    To the Honorable Court:
    As a citizen of the United States and 15 year veteran of the 
high-tech industry it is both my right, and duty to file comments 
with the court in the case of U.S. vs Microsoft anti-trust action as 
described under the provisions of the Tunney Act. I have chosen to 
write the court because activities of the Microsoft Monopoly have so 
seriously harmed my industry, that not only have they harmed the end 
consumer, but they have seriously impaired my ability to work in 
this industry.
    I will begin with a brief summary of my main points before 
expounding upon them in greater detail with specific facts. 
Basically, the proposed settlement is unacceptable when viewed in 
the interest of the public and industry for the following reasons:
    [1] The settlement was not written with a proper perspective of 
the industry as a whole in mind.
    [2] The way the settlement is written, it only provides remedy 
in regards to the current Microsoft platform. Microsoft is already 
putting their exit strategy to a new platform in place which will 
have the effect of making the settlement obsolete before it even 
goes into effect.
    [3] There are language inaccuracies that leave the efficacy of 
the settlement in doubt.
    [4] The settlement has very few provisions to remedy Microsoft's 
most publicly damaging weapon which is their End User License 
Agreement (hereafter known as the EULA).
    Now I will explore each item in greater depth so the court can 
better understand what actions need to be taken to fix the proposed 
remedy.
    [1] I will start with a brief industry perspective since that 
forms the root of objections 2 through 4. In the industry, it has 
been recognized that operating systems in general have moved from 
the status of a high-end, high-value product offering to a mere 
commodity in the same fashion as the use of electricity or 
telephones did in the early part of the 20th century, or even the 
computer hardware itself in the latter part of the 20th century. 
There has not been anything truly new or totally innovative in 
operating system technology in about the last 15 years or so. 
Indeed, modern operating systems are based on ideas spawned in 
universities over 30 years ago, most of which was perfected at least 
20 years ago.
    Most operating system vendors in the industry have already 
recognized this and adapted their business models to account for 
that. Although one would think of IBM, Sun Microsystems, HP, and 
Silicon Graphics Inc. (now known simply as SGI), as operating system 
vendors, that view would be somewhat incorrect. Their business 
models evolved to become hardware and consulting/service vendors 
that sell packages. Each workstation purchased from SGI comes with 
an entitlement to run certain releases of SGI's IRIX operating 
system based on its serial number; operating system upgrades are a 
rather miniscule portion of their revenue stream. They are even 
offering a Free operating system (Linux) on some of their offerings. 
Sun Microsystems gives their operating system away free of charge 
for personal or non-commercial use, and even makes the source code 
available without charge to developers that need to inspect it to 
improve their software offerings that run on Solaris. Both HP and 
IBM, most notably IBM as of late, have been making steps to move 
away from their proprietary operating system offerings to Open 
Source alternatives such as Linux and various flavors of BSD; both 
companies have moved to the sale of hardware or software 
applications and consulting services maintain the cash volume of 
their revenue streams. And of course, with the decline in market 
value of proprietary operating systems, we have seen the rise in 
interest and importance of Open Source, or Free operating systems 
such as Linux, and BSD to take the place of the proprietary ones.
    Companies that have failed to recognize this have perished. 
Witness the dismantling of Digital Equipment Corporation by Compaq, 
a commodity equipment and services vendor, The acquisition of Santa 
Cruz Operation (SCO Unix) by Caldera, a company that is known as a 
Linux specialist. Novell nearly perished trying to maintain their 
business model around Netware, but finally appears to have turned 
things around when they refocused on applications and services the 
past couple of years.
    The real focus in the computer industry is not on operating 
systems or platforms so much as it is in cross-platform 
applications, hardware support, and user interfacing. Basically, 
John Doe with a new digital camera wants to snap some pictures, 
retouch them on the computer, and make some nice glossy prints for 
the relatives. He doesn't even want to know anything about the 
operating system his computer runs, he wants the camera to function 
with his IBM PC running a PC operating system as well as it does 
with his friend's Macintosh running MacOS.
    In the history of this industry, Microsoft is truly unique. They 
have maintained and

[[Page 27999]]

increased their market share and position not through real product 
innovation, but through predatory practices that resulted in them 
becoming a monopoly. The maintenance of that monopoly is what has 
allowed them to keep an artificial floor on the value of the 
operating system products they offer. Notice the use of the term 
value here instead of price. Price is what a consumer pays, value is 
a reflection of the consumer's need. Naturally, the need affects the 
price one is willing to pay, so there is an interrelationship at 
work that implies the consumer is paying too much, which I'll 
explore further in item 4.
    [2] Although Microsoft has managed to keep an artificial floor 
on the value of their operating system products through monopolistic 
practices, even they realized that the inevitable pressures to 
marginalize the operating system would become too great for even 
them to bear. Thus they planned its obsolescence. The new target 
development platform of choice is going to be the .NET 
infrastructure. Ancient PC's had a BIOS containing the BASIC 
programming language/operating system that was permanently embedded 
in their ROM memory. As full fledged disk based operating systems 
came about, they marginalized the BIOS. None of the BIOS products 
these days has a built in programming language. It's only roll is to 
pull the disk based operating system in off disk now. It has no real 
apparent value to the end user of the system that rarely even 
notices the brief BIOS messages that flash by as the system boots 
up. No one programs to that interface anymore. Microsoft is trying 
to do the same thing to their own Windows operating system and 
replace it with .NET. Windows will become little more than a fancy 
video display driver. No one will program to it anymore. The .NET 
infrastructure will be the actual target for most future software 
development.
    This is also where I begin to find specific faults in the 
settlement as written. In section III. Prohibited Conduct, please 
reference paragraph D. The terse form of which basically says, 
``Microsoft must publish in full their programming APIs for the 
Windows operating system.'' The .NET framework is not 
specifically mentioned anywhere in the document, but presumably fits 
in under the definition of ``Middleware'' as described in 
sections VI.--J and VI. K. There is no section or language 
which indicates that they must fully disclose the middleware APIs. 
This is a fatal flaw as Microsoft has publicly acknowledged the 
corporate strategy shift from software publication on the Windows 
operating system to the .NET infrastructure running on top of it. 
Thus they can repeat the vendor lockout cycle again on a 
``whole new'' platform, unhindered by the terms of this 
settlement.
    Further, section III.-J, paragraphs 1 and 2 cause me grave 
concern, particularly in light of the .NET strategy. Section J in 
summary provides government granted exclusions. Paragraph 1 
basically states that Microsoft may keep any programming APIs, 
methodologies, and information about network protocol layers that 
relate to anti-virus protection, authentication, or encryption 
secret. Paragraph 2 allows Microsoft carte blanch to determine to 
whom they wish to share that information for purposes of 
interfacing. This goes against what is generally accepted as 
``best practices'' in the industry.
    It is accepted practice that network protocols and interfacing 
standards are proposed and peer reviewed in standards committees 
such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) or the World Wide 
Web Consortium (W3C) to provide for better design, functionality, 
robustness, and security. Items related to authentication, and 
encryption in particular need the critical attention of peer review 
due both to the complexity of such systems, and the importance of 
the data protected by such systems. It is also accepted practice 
that the architecture is open so that anyone may produce their own 
implementation of the standard so that products from different 
vendors can interoperate freely. After all, that is the end goal, to 
connect one user with another.
    Microsoft has in the past proven their incompetence in the 
implementation of cryptographic systems and security in general. 
Witness the introduction of L0pht Crack (pronounced 
``loft'') which could pull encrypted passwords from the 
Windows NT registry thanks to its flawed cryptographic 
implementation. The numerous viruses such as Sircam, Love Letter, 
Nimbda, etc. that have exploited weaknesses in Microsoft's security 
interfaces. My point here is not to bring new evidence to the court, 
but more to make the point that sensitive systems related to 
security, authentication, and encryption need to be designed under 
the intelligence of multiple parties. Hence the peer review and 
refereeing process that is so widely used in the industry. It also 
helps prevent one party from subverting the standards for their own 
ends.
    Micrsoft intends for the .NET platform to help provide a new 
infrastructure for information storage, security, and 
identification/authentication, that will help drive a future 
Internet based economy. With the help of standards committees, 
implementations from multiple vendors, and so forth, this could be a 
good thing for society. However, it is far from the public's best 
interest for one company to own the whole thing. If there's only one 
implementation, then any security flaws discovered, and experience 
shows there will be many, can bring down everything. Furthermore, 
independent companies need to have access to interfacing standards 
for something as important as this to provide consumers choice in 
the products and services space connected with this platform.
    [3] I have already voiced some concern over where .NET fits into 
the settlement agreement. However, there are other specific 
inaccuracies in language and specificity that could render the 
agreement unenforceable.
    In this matter, I would like to refer the court to a very 
thorough analysis compiled by one Dan Kegel and other parties 
available on the web here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html 
Mr. Kegel has also submitted, or is in the process of submitting, 
this document to the court for inspection as part of an open letter 
with many co-signers as his contribution under the Tunney Act. I 
will not waste the court's time re-iterating what he has already so 
carefully documented except to state that I AGREE IN FULL with the 
assessment provided in that document.
    [4] Towards the end, of the document, Mr. Kegel begins to 
address some issues regarding the EULA agreements that Microsoft 
imposes on their product users. The settlement makes no requirements 
for change to potentially predatory practices in Microsoft's EULAs. 
Unfortunately, that is one of Miscrosoft's tools for manipulating 
and harming the consumer, and other parts of the industry.
    Mr. Kegel points out that the Windows Media Encoder EULA 
prohibits distribution of certain redistributable components when 
accompanied with application components that were licensed under a 
Free or Open Source license. And that the Microsoft Platform SDK and 
Visual C++ development environment have in their EULA a clause that 
can make it illegal for you to distribute and run your own created 
application on a Windows compatible platform such as a Windows 
emulator on a Sun, SGI, or Macintosh computer, or a PC running Wine, 
IBM 0S/2, or Trumpet Petros, all of which are Windows alternatives. 
He also points out that some Microsoft utilities such as NewsAlert 
state in the EULA that they are forbidden to be run on non-Microsoft 
operating systems.
    To those examples, I wish to add a few more.
    Microsoft uses the EULA to tie their Windows operating system to 
the PC on which it was purchased. This means that when a user 
trashes a PC, he cannot use the same copy of Windows on the new PC, 
but must instead purchase a new and redundant copy of Windows to be 
fully in compliance with the licensing agreement. As PC technology 
dates quickly, users who must update frequently are legally bound to 
purchase redundant copies of an operating system that they already 
have, thus helping Microsoft to maintain its revenue stream on what 
should have already been a commodity item. In the present, Microsoft 
with the advent of Windows XP has already implemented software EULA 
enforcement that prevents users from upgrading too many components 
of their system before they have to go back to Microsoft and re-
license the same operating system install on the same PC.
    Indeed, Microsoft used to offer a refund for unwanted copies of 
their Windows software product with this language in the EULA, 
``If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, PC 
manufacturer and Microsoft are unwilling to license the software 
product to you. In such an event ... you should promptly contact PC 
manufacturer for instructions on a return of the unused product(s) 
for a refund. ``However, after an unsuccessful campaign on by 
many users to claim such refunds on an organized ``Windows 
Refund Day'' on Feb 15th, 1999, people discovered that 
Microsoft and its vendors had no intentions of honoring that clause 
and had no effective refund channel in place., and it appears to 
have since been removed from the licensing agreement.
    Microsoft attempts to limit the constitutionally provided right 
to free speech

[[Page 28000]]

in the EULA contained with the Microsoft FrontPage 2002 product for 
web publishing. It sates, ``You may not use the Software in 
connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, 
Expedia, or their products or services, infringe any intellectual 
property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, 
federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred or 
pornography.'' So if I publish an article on the web using MS 
FrontPage such as a product performance benchmark that Microsoft 
finds unfavorable, have I indeed violated the EULA? Whether or not 
these agreements are actually enforceable if a matter of legal 
opinion that I am not qualified to evaluate. However, what is clear 
is that Microsoft has cleverly left itself some channels through 
which it can attempt to tie individuals or businesses up in court 
when it finds their actions displeasurable. The potential legal 
costs alone have a chilling an dampening effect in the industry.
    In closing, I beg the court to find the proposed settlement as 
lacking in enforceability and effective remedy. This settlement 
needs to be rejected and reworked keeping the points that I have 
outlined above in mind.
    Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Scott Kasten
    This message was sent using Us.Net Webmail.



MTC-00027385

From: Keith Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    In accordance with provisions in the Tunney Act, I am writing 
this to comment on the proposed settlement in the anti-trust case 
U.S. v Microsoft.
    I am a software developer both professionally, and as a 
hobbyist. I have written software for Microsoft operating systems 
(DOS and Windows 95/NT) as well as for several variants of Unix.
    I believe that the proposed settlement is very seriously flawed 
and should be abandoned. Firstly, the proposed settlement does not 
adequately punish Microsoft for the detrimental effect on consumers 
caused by their abuse of their operating system monopoly. Secondly, 
the behavioral remedies proposed are insufficient, and in several 
cases, unworkable.
    The Court should note that this is not the first time Microsoft 
has used its monopoly on the Windows operating system to drive a 
direct competitor (with a then-superior product) out of business 
using illicit, if not illegal, means (see Caldera v Microsoft 
regarding Digital Research's DR-DOS). Microsoft has also been 
documented to provide extra functionality in some operating system 
API's which are disclosed to Microsoft application developers, but 
not to third party application developers (see Microsoft v Intuit 
regarding undocumented system calls). Furthermore, this case is not 
the first time Microsoft's anticompetitive marketing practices have 
been brought before the Court (see the first U.S. v Microsoft case 
and the resultant Consent Decree). Moreover, as their violation of 
that same Consent Decree brought about this current case which 
resulted in the judgment against Microsoft, I believe that forgoing 
punitive damages and relying on Microsoft to police its own behavior 
is unconscionable. I do not have the time to illustrate all of the 
flaws which I find in the proposed settlement, I will choose a few 
representative ones. Firstly, I will address the broad exemption 
given to Microsoft to avoid disclosure of all API's and protocols as 
they relate to security. If the Court has not been made aware, 
during the course of this comment period, it was disclosed that the 
integration of the Internet Explorer browser with the Windows 
operating system carried with it a massive security flaw. This flaw 
allowed a malicious person free reign to take over any Internet-
connected machine so configured.
    As such, it could easily be argued that all API's relating to 
Internet Explorer and its integration with Windows should be exempt 
from disclosure due to security concerns. If this is the case, the 
settlement will fail to address the core of the case which 
culminated in Microsoft having been judged an illegal monopolist.
    Secondly, as per the proposed settlement, Microsoft may elect 
not to divulge its API's and protocols to any organization which is 
deemed to not have a viable business plan. This exemption may be 
used to exclude several key classes of application developers. 
Primarily, this will affect Open Source and Free Software projects, 
many of which are based on the efforts of hobbyists and are not 
backed by companies with business plans (viable or otherwise). As 
Microsoft faces much of its current competition form such projects, 
it would be unconscionable to stifle these under the guise of 
punishing Microsoft. Secondarily, entrepreneurs will be dissuaded 
from competing against Microsoft. For example, Microsoft could 
determine that any company seeking to write a better version of, 
say, Internet Explorer does not have a viable business plan. More 
importantly, such a company would have to announce its intent to 
compete (via its business plan) before being allowed to examine 
Microsoft's API's. This alone would give Microsoft a competitive 
advantage unknown to any other company in any industry in the world.
    Lastly, I wish to address the implementation of the three-person 
technology committee proposed to oversee Microsoft's compliance with 
the proposed settlement. The only parallel I can devise for the 
utter absurdity of having two of the three members chosen or 
approved by Microsoft is the Colombians allowing Escobar to build 
and staff his own prison. Even ignoring the fact that they will be 
provided benefits by Microsoft (such as office space) while serving 
on the committee, the amount of oversight required to ensure 
compliance is far greater than three people can reasonably be 
expected to accomplish. For example, if they chose to audit Windows 
XP to ensure that it contains no code designed solely to degrade the 
performance of other vendors'' applications, It would take them 
the rest of their natural lives merely to read through the hundreds 
of millions of lines of source code involved, let alone to analyze 
its effects.
    In conclusion, I hope that I have successfully explained why I 
feel that this proposed settlement is deficient, and that the ideas 
within this comment will be considered when the proposed final 
judgment is revisited. I believe that a structural remedy would be 
preferable as it would require less continuing oversight. Barring 
that, I would like to see at a minimum enforced public disclosure of 
all API's, protocols and file formats, because, without the help of 
large numbers of software developers who are not affiliated with 
Microsoft, effective oversight will be impossible. Microsoft claims 
that these are their exclusive intellectual property. Be that as it 
may, they are also the core of the monopoly, and the strength behind 
the documented abusive practices.
    Sincerely,
    Keith Schmidt



MTC-00027386

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is truly amazing that a company that has done so much for the 
productivity of a nation should find it the subject of a lawsuit. If 
the consumer does not want to buy it, they vote with their feet. The 
only monopoly I know of that has ever existed was accomplished 
through government legislation and collusion. The market has never 
permitted one.
    If everyone is so upset with Microsoft, let them use OS/2, Unix 
or any of the other operating software on the market.
    This is just plain wrong. The right would be for the judge to 
say the people have spoken in the market place. No further comment 
or abjudication is necessary.
    Sincerely,
    Captain Russell Cowles
    A300 Captain at, but not speaking for, American Airlines



MTC-00027387

From: Jeffrey E. Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:39pm
Subject: Comments on the Proposed Microsoft Settlement
CC: Randy Steer,Allan Villabroza
    My name is Jeffrey Harris. I currently work as a network 
administrator and software developer for a company that provides 
computer services to both government and industry. The company I 
work for has established a number of partnerships, the most 
significant ones being a Microsoft (MS) Solutions Partner and a 
Lotus/IBM Business Partner. I hold Microsoft Certified System 
Engineer and Microsoft Certified Systems Administrator 
certifications on the Windows 2000 Operating System, and the Windows 
NT operating systems, and I have worked with all versions of 
Microsoft Windows (both server and desktop versions where 
applicable) from Windows Version 2 to Windows XP in both a 
professional and personal capacity. I also hold certifications from 
Lotus Development on their Groupware Applications (Lotus Notes/
Domino). I believe that my qualifications, as well as over 10

[[Page 28001]]

years experience working with computers and computer networks, 
including MS and non-MS products, make me well qualified to comment 
on the proposed MS settlement. Please note that I speak as both a 
computer professional, and as a consumer.
    Also note that nothing in this message reflects the opinions or 
position of the company I work for, and I am acting ONLY in my own 
personal capacity in submitting these comments.
    I ask that my comments be entered into the Federal Record, and 
considered by the presiding judge in determining the Court's final 
decision. I also ask that the Department of Justice acknowledge 
receipt of my comments.
    My comments are based on a review of the original government 
complaint, the proposed settlement, and the Justice Department's 
Competitive Impact Statement (CIS), as published on the US 
Department of Justice's (USDOJ) website, and the Appeals Court's 
ruling as published on the Appeal Court's website.
    Executive Summary: I STRONGLY oppose the MS Settlement in its 
current form. In my opinion, the agreed-to settlement will do 
little, if anything, to restrict MS'' abusive and illegal 
monopolist practices, and will mainly serve to prevent the 
government from documenting and presenting any future abuses for 
legal sanctions. I cannot see how the settlement that is proposed 
even pretends to remedy the antitrust violations for which MS has 
been found culpable, and how it will meet the required standard of 
remedying anti-competitive practices that have harmed consumers. The 
company has been found in violation of Federal Anti-Trust Law, and 
this is the penalty phase of the case, but the settlement contains 
no penalties and actually advances MS'' operating system 
monopoly in a number of ways, as I discuss below. I recommend that 
the Court either reject the proposed settlement outright, or modify 
the settlement to close the numerous loopholes identified below. I 
have provided some additional remedies for the Court's 
consideration, which are not part of the proposed settlement, but 
which, in my opinion, will further the public interest, if adopted 
by the Court.
    Background: The United States and several of the states filed 
suit against MS claiming violation of various provisions of the 
Sherman Anti-Trust Act. After a trial, and appeal, a ruling was made 
and upheld that MS monopolized the PC Operating Systems market in 
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The US Court of Appeals 
remanded the case back to District Court, for, among other things, a 
new determination of penalties for this violation. The Court asked 
the plaintiffs and MS to attempt to reach a settlement acceptable to 
both sides that would address the practices that MS was found guilty 
of.
    An agreement (which was subsequently revised) was reached by 
both parties, and the revised agreement presented to the Court for 
approval. The US Department of Justice, in accordance with Federal 
Law, has solicited public comment on the proposed settlement.
    Comments on the proposed agreement:
    General Comments: This agreement focuses too much on middleware 
and middleware products (as defined in the proposed agreement); for 
my discussion in this section, I refer to them both as simply 
``Middleware''. The original complaint against MS does not 
mention Middleware at all (I did a word search for 
``Middleware''). However, the provisions of the 
settlement, with few exceptions, focus on Middleware. The USDOJ in 
the CIS (page 2) states that the Appeals Court upheld the conclusion 
that MS acted to protect its operating system monopoly from the 
threat of Middleware. Yet, the Appeals Court's decision only 
mentions Middleware 39 times in a 43304 word opinion, and while the 
decision did address MS'' objections to the District Court's 
decision, some of which were based on the exclusion of Middleware as 
a mitigating factor in MS'' favor, the Appeals Court decision 
looks beyond that. Both the original Trial Court, and the Court of 
Appeals noted in their rulings that Middleware, in and of itself, 
does not provide enough incentive for users that it would end 
MS'' illegal monopolistic practices. Therefore, in my opinion, 
the proposed agreement wrongly focuses on remedying MS'' 
illegal actions by trying to promote competition in Middleware.
    Furthermore, the ultimate goal of any settlement from this anti-
trust action should be the promotion of competition that allows 
users a choice in the selection of operating systems. USDOJ (on page 
25 of the CIS) reminds us that ``Appropriate injunctive relief 
in an antitrust case should: (1) end the unlawful conduct; (2) 
``avoid a recurrence of the violation'' and others like 
it; and (3) undo its anti-competitive consequences.'' The 
Appeals Court Decision stated ``From a century of case law on 
monopolization under (2) however, several principles do emerge. 
First, to be condemned as exclusionary, a monopolist's act must have 
an ``anti-competitive effect.'' That is, it must harm the 
competitive process and thereby harm consumers. In contrast, harm to 
one or more competitors will not suffice. ``The [Sherman Act] 
directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even 
severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy 
competition itself.'' Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 
U.S. 447, 458 (1993); see also Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & 
Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 225 (1993) ('Even an act of 
pure malice by one business competitor against another does not, 
without more, state a claim under the federal antitrust laws .... 
``).''
    I do not really see where the proposed agreement meets any of 
the criteria the USDOJ lists, nor is there any substantiation by 
USDOJ in the CIS of how the proposed agreement will definitively 
benefit consumers. From my reading of the document, the proposed 
agreement does not directly provide any benefits to the consumer; 
the benefits accrue to OEMs, ISVs, IAPs, and ICPs, with the 
expectation that the benefits may flow through to consumers. For 
example, allowing OEMs to provide dual operating systems on PCs for 
consumers does consumers no good if the OEMs choose not to provide a 
choice of operating systems, and similarly for middleware. For this 
reason alone, the Court should reject the proposed agreement as 
being inadequate.
    Specific comments:
    Paragraph III A. purports to restrict any retaliatory behavior 
against any OEM (i.e., computer manufacturer) for exercising its 
rights under the proposed agreement, or for various activities 
related to non-Microsoft software. However, nothing in this 
paragraph discusses the right of an OEM to ship a computer system 
without an operating system at all. Although most new computer 
systems have a version of a Windows operating system installed, it 
is virtually impossible to buy a PC from any major OEM without a MS 
operating system, let alone a non-MS operating system, and the price 
of that operating system is passed along as part of the cost of the 
system, whether the consumer wants it or not.
    USDOJ (on page 27 of the CIS) states that MS can only base 
consideration on the absolute level or amount of the OEMs support 
for the MS product or service, rather than on any relative level or 
amount. What does ``absolute'' mean, and how can this be 
enforced?
    Also, the USDOJ discusses (on page 28 of the CIS) that OEMs are 
protected against sudden loss of Windows licenses. However, MS can 
still cancel licenses AFTER the 30 day opportunity to cure, which 
could still result in continued anti-competitive behavior by MS.
    This provision also does not prohibit MS from retaliating 
against an OEM that makes a good-faith complaint against MS alleging 
a violation of the proposed agreement, which is either not brought 
forward to the Court for action, or is ruled as not being a 
violation of the settlement. In essence, an OEM would have to 
consider whether or not the harm it believes it may be suffering 
from MS as a result of a purported violation of the proposed 
agreement is worth additional penalties it may suffer from MS if the 
Court does not agree with the purposed violation (or no action is 
taken by the Plaintiffs), and does not redress them.
    Paragraph III B addresses the requirement for MS to license its 
software using uniform royalties, and to make available to the 
covered OEMs and Plaintiffs information on the royalty schedule. The 
proposed agreement does not provide for public access to this 
information.
    Paragraphs III B2 and B3 allows MS to specify 
``reasonable'' volume discounts based upon the volume of 
licenses. What is considered ``reasonable''? Who will 
decide if MS is specifying ``reasonable'' discounts? The 
lack of definition of ``reasonable'' is one reason to make 
the royalty schedule public, so that if the public believes that MS 
is not being reasonable, it can ask its government representatives 
in the USDOJ and the various states to take action.
    Furthermore, when discounts are based on volume of licenses, it 
provides incentive for MS to continue to push for the installation 
of a MS product on EVERY system that an OEM ships, since the more 
that are installed, the bigger the discount for'' the OEM. This 
flatly contradicts the purpose of the proposed agreement to curb 
MS'' monopolistic practices.
    USDOJ (on page 29 of the CIS) defends this provision, noting 
that it is based on

[[Page 28002]]

``verifiable criteria'', which is ``uniformly 
applied''. Yet, this ``verifiable criteria'' could 
still be biased in favor of MS--for example, a requirement that 
a browser provide an integrated Windows logon capability. Most 
browsers, including Internet Explorer, provide a capability to allow 
users to access remote servers that restrict access based on user 
accounts.
    Internet Explorer also has a capability to ``pass 
through'' a user's credentials in a way that no other mass-
market browser has (unlike other browsers, there is no need for a 
user to enter a username and password). Therefore, MS could include 
this as a ``verifiable criteria'', which would be heavily 
biased in favor of Internet Explorer.
    Also the USDOJ (on the same page of the CIS) defends the 
selection of the 20 largest OEM for protection. However, no data is 
provided for what percentage of all Windows licenses those 20 
largest distribute compared to the total universe of OEMs, and 
compared to all Windows licenses distributed from all sources. 
Furthermore, there is no protections for end users who buy retail 
copies of MS products, instead of obtaining them through the 
purchase of OEM systems. Since consumers MUST be the ultimate 
beneficiaries of any anti-trust action, there needs to be relief for 
these purchasers as well.
    Paragraph III C4 prohibits MS from restricting ``dual 
booting'', but again, if the OEM chooses not to provide this 
option, or chooses not to provide an option to purchase a pre-
installed non-MS operating system, nothing will change for 
consumers. Therefore, focusing this relief on OEMs is misplaced.
    Clarification for Paragraph III C5: Does ``initial boot 
sequence'' refer to setup of the program, or the initialization 
of the operating system after the operating system is installed and 
the user starts, or restarts, the computer? Please add this term to 
the list of definitions in the proposed agreement.
    Paragraph III D requires two different release dates for 
operating system documentation and APIs; one is tied to the earlier 
of the release of Windows XP Service Pack (SP) 1, or 12 months; the 
other is tied to a ``Timely Manner'' as defined in the 
proposed agreement, and purportedly applies to operating systems 
released after Windows XP. Note that Windows XP is the client side 
operating system for the latest release of a MS Windows Operating 
System. The corresponding server version is now called ``.net 
server'', and is still in Beta test. Therefore, if MS releases 
the last beta of .net server prior to the release point based on 
Windows XP SP1 or 12 months, which requirement applies?
    Also, what is considered ``a new version''? For 
example, MS released Windows 98 Second Edition (SE) as a 
``new'' version of the Windows 98 operating system, yet 
many people (myself included) feel that Windows 98 Second Edition 
was really just an upgrade or SP release to Windows 98, and yet MS 
implicitly recognized that by providing a special ``step 
up'' installation version of Windows 98 SE that could only be 
used by owners of the original Windows 98 version.
    Paragraph III E requires disclosure of communications protocols. 
However, MS could sidestep the requirement in this provision by not 
including the protocol in the operating system distribution itself, 
but instead require an add-on product to provide the capability; the 
add-on would be distributed either by automatic download to clients, 
or other means of distribution to client systems other than 
including it in the operating system distribution. For example, 
Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, and Windows NT 4.0 machines 
require an ``add-in'' package (an ``Active Directory 
Services Client'') to interoperate in certain ways with Windows 
2000 servers. This software is not included with those operating 
systems, but is available for download from MS, or from the 
appropriate Windows 2000 server installation CDs. The USDOJ (on page 
39 of the CIS) explicitly acknowledges this limitation of the 
proposed agreement.
    Paragraph III F discusses retaliation by MS against companies 
that exercise options under this proposed agreement. However, 
Paragraph III F1, similar to what was noted above for Paragraph III 
A, does not prohibit MS from retaliating against an ISV or IHV that 
makes a good-faith complaint against MS alleging a violation of the 
settlement, which is either not brought forward to the Court for 
action, or is ruled not a violation of the proposed agreement. In 
essence, an ISV or IHV would have to consider whether or not the 
harm it believes it may be suffering from MS as a result of a 
purported violation of this agreement is worth additional penalties 
it may suffer from MS if the Court does not agree with the purposed 
violation (or no action is taken by the Plaintiffs), and does not 
redress them.
    Paragraph III F 2 grandfathers any current restrictions between 
ISVs or IHVs and MS under the proposed agreement, but goes on to 
allow MS to craft partnership agreements that would prohibit these 
companies, such as the one I work for, from entering into other 
partnership agreements with companies that compete with MS (i.e., 
Lotus/IBM since their e-mail system competes with MS'). This one 
provision could nullify the entire benefit the USDOJ is trying to 
achieve for the ISV/IHV community, and could actually serve to 
STRENGTHEN MS' anti-monopolistic practices.
    Paragraph III G discusses MS agreements with independent 
companies such as ISVs and OEMs. MS could avoid the restrictions in 
this paragraph by establishing joint development efforts that bind 
the other party--in essence, by providing substantial 
consideration to induce companies to establish such efforts. In 
addition, MS could avoid the restrictions in this paragraph by 
licensing intellectual property (IP) for its exclusive 
use--thereby making such IP unavailable for non-MS products, 
either for direct incorporation into those products, or for 
indirectly use as middleware to achieve interoperability with 
Windows operating systems. Again, this provision could nullify the 
entire benefit the USDOJ is trying to achieve for the ISV/IHV etc., 
community, and could further serve to STRENGTHEN MS'' anti-
monopolistic practices. For example, in the CIS, USDOJ discusses 
(bottom of Page 14) how MS coerced Apple to adopt Internet Explorer 
in exchange for continued development of MS Office for Apple 
systems. Such behavior would still be legal if it is part of a joint 
development effort or investment in Apple by MS.
    MS could also establish fixed percentages for distribution of MS 
products. Using the example cited by USDOJ (on page 44 of the CIS), 
an IAP could agree to ship Windows Media Player on 70% of its 
software distribution if it can show it is commercially feasible for 
it to ship 70% of its software distribution with a non-MS media 
player. While it may be commercially feasible, that is not the same 
as being competitively advantageous for it to ship the non-MS media 
player, particularly if MS is paying it substantially more to ship 
Windows Media Player. Such action could ultimately result in the 
loss of competing products as a result of MS'' deep pockets and 
marketing muscle with IAPs.
    I note that III G 2 prohibits MS from offering IAPs placement on 
the desktop in exchange for IAPs agreeing to refrain from using 
competing non-MS Middleware Products, yet nothing prohibits MS from 
offering a quid pro quo for an IAP--placement on the desktop 
(which need not be a formal part of any agreement) and a percent 
placement in the IAPs distribution packages (as discussed in my 
previous paragraph) in exchange for significant payments by MS. 
Paragraph III H discusses requirements for MS to allow removal of 
Middleware and Middleware products by end users. MS could avoid the 
requirements of III H 1 by separating Middleware Products (as 
defined in the proposed agreement) from the operating system as add-
ons, and enabling automatic download to clients (or perhaps by 
requiring OEMs to install them separately from the basic operating 
system on their systems, but nevertheless pre-installing those 
components as well). Such ``Middleware Products'' (in 
quotes because software as discussed in this scenario does not meet 
the definition in the proposed agreement) may be required for full 
functionality of the operating system, yet, because they do not meet 
the formal definition of Middleware Products in the proposed 
agreement, would not require the uninstall capability.
    Paragraph III H also could invoke a ``poison pill'' 
response by requiring the enablement of either all MS Middleware 
Products or all Non-MS Middleware products as a group; for example, 
a user may be forced to pick Windows Media Player and Internet 
Explorer over a non-MS browser and media player because he dislikes 
Internet Explorer, and would prefer a non-MS browser, but feels he 
needs to have Windows Media Player. While there is still an element 
of choice in this scenario, the available options are not 
necessarily desirable to users, and implicitly may favor MS, because 
users may stick to products they know, rather than ones they do not.
    There are also a number of important additional exceptions to 
the applicability of Paragraph III H. First, MS can avoid the 
provisions of this paragraph by carefully crafting Middleware 
Products to require the type of functionally which excludes it from 
this provision.
    Second, a significant number of systems with Windows operating 
systems do not

[[Page 28003]]

connect to a server outside the Internet, yet those systems can be 
bound by the restrictions that apply for systems that DO connect to 
servers. Since most systems that do not connect to servers outside 
the Internet are those purchased and used by consumers, this 
exclusion will have the biggest impact on them. Third, the 
provisions apply essentially to existing technology as of the 
previous operating system. Therefore, when MS releases a new 
operating system, it is not bound to the provisions of this 
paragraph for any new Middleware products until and unless it 
carries the product forward to the next succeeding Windows operating 
system, or it releases that Middleware less than seven months prior 
to the last beta test version of that new operating system.
    Also, what is ``a server maintained by Microsoft''Is 
that an Internet accessible server operated by MS or a subsidiary to 
provide specialized services, such as Hotmail or Passport? Or is it 
a computer running a Windows server operating system? Please 
clarify. If it is the former, why should consumers be locked into 
accepting a Microsoft Middleware Product, particularly if they do 
not intend to ever use the MS servers?
    Paragraph III I discusses requirements for MS to license its IP. 
However the restrictions of this paragraph, particularly Paragraph 
III I 3, may unduly restrict the development of non-Microsoft 
middleware or other rights contemplated by this agreement. For 
example, if Sun Microsystems wants to obtain MS IP for the purposes 
of making its Java Virtual Machine interoperate with Windows XP, MS 
could restrict the ability of Sun to distribute the Virtual Machine 
to other ISVs for the purposes of building software applications 
that run on that Virtual Machine, undermining the intent of this 
provision.
    Furthermore, Paragraph III I 5 requires that any company that 
seeks to assert its rights under the proposed agreement may have to 
license its IP to MS. The USDOJ's discussion in the CIS not 
withstanding, I do not understand why a company would need to submit 
to MS ITS IP to assert its rights under the proposed agreement; this 
requirement could serve as a mechanism to restrict companies'' 
reliance on the proposed agreement, since companies may have to 
consider whether it is in their best interest to license their IP to 
MS, and they may decide that they should forgo protection under the 
proposed agreement, rather than share sensitive IP information with 
MS, which is NOT the intent behind the proposed agreement. Companies 
should not have to make such an onerous choice.
    Paragraph III J discusses restrictions and rights MS has in 
licensing documentation and API information, and in my opinion, this 
paragraph provides the best means for MS to avoid compliance with 
many other provisions of the proposed agreement. First, in Paragraph 
III J 1, MS is permitted to not disclose API and other information 
related to anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital 
rights management, encryption or authentication systems. The USDOJ's 
description of this exclusion as ``narrow'', and comments 
in the CIS (page 53) notwithstanding, such exclusions serve to only 
undermine the intent of the proposed agreement, and limit the 
benefits to anyone outside MS. For example, MS is developing a new 
strategy (``Dot-NET'') that provides for distributed 
application and transaction processing across a network of servers, 
and is incorporating the capability for doing this in its soon-to-
be-released .NET server software. Any distributed application 
processing MUST provide capabilities for securing transactions, and 
yet, under this exclusion, MS would not be required to release 
necessary APIs or documentation to allow non-MS Middleware and 
applications to compete equally with MS software. Similarly, MS 
would not have to release salient potions of APIs for Windows Media 
Player (which incorporates Digital Rights Management APIs) or APIs 
that non-MS anti-virus software manufacturers could use to improve 
the performance of their products (for example, obtaining 
information about how scripts that are run using MS'' native 
Javascript or Visual Basic scripting engines, since this could touch 
upon how MS incorporates anti-virus measures into the engines to 
protect against certain types of virus-infected scripts).
    USDOJ also states this provision is necessary for MS to comply 
with ``lawful orders'' of federal agencies to not disclose 
certain information on security grounds. To my knowledge, no such 
``lawful orders'' currently exist, and even if they do, or 
will so in the future, the wording of this paragraph could have been 
tailored to say exactly that no more and no less. As the wording 
stands, it goes well beyond being able to comply with such 
``lawful orders'' Second, Paragraph III J 2 allows MS to 
place restrictions on licensing APIs, communications protocol and 
documentation relating to the functions discussed in my previous 
paragraph. An API, or a communications protocol, and their 
associated documentation generally provide the means for calling a 
function from the operating system (for example, accessing a file on 
a computer) without explaining all the details of how the underlying 
mechanism operates (for example, the file format of a 
``token'' necessary to verify that the user is authorized 
to access that file).
    In many cases, communication protocols themselves are publicly 
defined and available on the Internet for review, particularly those 
that relate to the Internet. Therefore, I do not understand how 
restrictions on the release of such information harm MS; however, I 
do see harm to consumers and independent software writers (i.e., 
individuals who author and market their own software, generally as 
``freeware'' or ``shareware'' via the Internet) 
since the necessary information that software writers need to write 
software that competes with MS Middleware Products may be 
unavailable, and therefore their products will be unavailable for 
consumers to select in place of an equivalent MS product.
    Paragraph IV A 3 restricts the ability of Plaintiffs to release 
information provided by MS except as it may relate to an enforcement 
action, and under certain other conditions. Such restrictions limit 
the availability of information that may be useful in private 
litigation against MS that relates to the proposed agreement, but 
which the states and the USDOJ, for whatever reason, do not use to 
bring enforcement actions against MS. In essence, short of an 
enforcement action, this provision makes it difficult for the public 
to know if MS has breached the proposed agreement, and more 
difficult for others to prove that they did so. Paragraph IV B 2 
discusses requirements for individuals to serve on the Technical 
Committee (TC). The requirement for individuals to be ``experts 
in software design and programming'' unduly disqualifies a 
large class of individuals who are experts in administering 
computers, but who do not write software. TC members also need to 
know how to administer systems, since software design alone may not 
reveal obvious restrictions (i.e., a vulnerability due to a specific 
operating system configurations that falls outside the scope of the 
software design itself or Middleware Products that require a 
specific hardware configuration in operational systems that again is 
outside the software design itself).
    Paragraph IV B 2 a specifies that a TC member shall not have 
been employed by a competitor, unless agreed to by both parties. How 
is a competitor defined? Since MS makes a large range of software 
and hardware products, and provides a range of services, including 
Internet access, does this mean that any employee in any company 
that makes software or hardware for systems that utilize MS software 
or hardware or provides services in markets that MS competes, such 
as Internet access, would be prohibited from serving on the TC 
without approval from both sides? I believe that the term should be 
defined explicitly and narrowly in the proposed agreement from its 
possibly broad usage (i.e., competitors are the 20 largest ISVs, and 
the 20 largest IHVs based on license revenue to MS, the 20 largest 
IAPs, and the 20 largest service providers for support on MS 
software and hardware, based on annual revenue).
    Paragraphs IV B 9 and 10 place restrictions on members of the TC 
and their staff, including requirements to treat all information as 
confidential, and prohibitions on public statements. Such 
restrictions limit the ability of the public--who are supposed 
to be the ultimate beneficiaries of this agreement--from being 
informed on substantial or even individual issues with regard to 
MS'' compliance with this proposed agreement (the TC is allowed 
to keep complainants informed on the status of complaints made to 
the TC, but only to the extent it does not breach their restrictions 
in this paragraph). Again, should the Plaintiffs not make an 
enforcement action against MS as a result of TC action (an issue 
that I will discuss further in my next paragraph), purported 
violations of this agreement may never be made public.
    Paragraph IV D 4 d prohibits any work product, finding, or 
recommendation by the TC from being admitted in an enforcement 
action against MS for violation of this proposed agreement. This 
provision, in my opinion, will fatally cripple the ability of the 
Plaintiffs to pursue an enforcement action. Even if this provision 
only applies to

[[Page 28004]]

voluntary dispute resolution activity (and it is not clear to me 
that such a limitation applies, even though it is in the section for 
voluntary dispute resolution), it is highly likely that prior to an 
enforcement action, the Plaintiffs would pursuit voluntary dispute 
resolution with MS, thus prohibiting, in this scenario, the 
admission of any TC work in a subsequent enforcement proceeding.
    The Plaintiffs may also wait to see a pattern of behavior, and 
then act. Many individuals or small company make use of the dispute 
resolution process to seek redress against violations of this 
agreement by MS. If the Plaintiffs then decided to seek an 
enforcement action based on a compilation of those complaints, no 
further use of information that the TC produced could be used in the 
subsequent enforcement action.
    I also believe that the restrictions of this paragraph may go 
well beyond the literal bar on enforcement actions. Although USDOJ, 
in the CIS (page 59), has stated that this restriction would not bar 
subsequent enforcement actions based on derivative use, nowhere in 
the proposed agreement is this explicitly stated. Therefore, MS may 
have a viable argument--based on precedent for limited immunity 
in criminal cases--that any evidence compiled by the Plaintiffs 
that relies on, or is derived from, TC materials may be inadmissible 
because it was only available as a result of, or knowledge of, TC 
work, and therefore is indirectly admitting TC work. Whether or not 
such a defense would succeed would not be known until, and unless, 
the Plaintiffs bring an enforcement action, and the courts rule on 
such a motion and any appeals. Therefore, I believe that this 
provision should be stricken from the proposed agreement to prevent 
any bars on future enforcement actions.
    Section V discusses termination of the proposed agreement. While 
I offer no opinion as to whether or not five years is an appropriate 
and equitable period for the proposed agreement to last, I highly 
question the benefits of possibly extending the proposed agreement 
for another two years, should MS engage in a pattern of willful and 
systematic violations (a charge that may be difficult, if 
impossible, to prove, based on my previous comments). Why should the 
same prohibitions for another two years cause any change in 
MS'' behavior, if the previous five have not? I remind the 
Court that this is the THIRD enforcement action against MS in the 
last 10 years.
    Definition J is for ``Middleware''. I see several 
problems with this definition. First, Middleware must be 
trademarked. Should MS want to evade the provisions of this proposed 
agreement, it merely has to not trademark any Middleware. While MS 
may lose some legal rights should it not trademark a given 
Middleware, it may still hold ``branding'' rights with 
regard to the Middleware (i.e., the name ``Topaz'' may not 
be trademarked for a future version of an e-mail client, but 
everyone associates Topaz as its relates to e-mail with MS), and it 
may be to MS'' advantage in any given case to NOT trademark a 
specific piece of Middleware.
    Second, the definition requires that the Middleware in question 
must update the appropriate Middleware Product to the next major 
version number, as that term is defined in the paragraph. However, 
MS can avoid the invocation of this definition by changing the way 
it versions products. Instead of a release changing a Middle product 
to version 6.1 from 6.0, for example, the Middleware changes the 
version to 6.01 or 6.0, Service Pack 1. Both of these latter 
nomenclatures are ones that MS uses today. With such nomenclature, a 
``Middleware'' release may NEVER trigger the definition, 
and the restrictions accorded such a release under the terms of the 
proposed agreement.
    Third, the Middleware in question must contain user interface 
elements. Although USDOJ (on page 18) tries to defend this 
requirement, I believe it only serves to undermine their intent. 
User Interface can apply to either the Middleware Product itself, or 
the interface of the Middleware installer (the redistributable file 
which installs the Middleware for the user). If USDOJ is referring 
to the Middleware installer, then I concur with this part of the 
definition. If they are referring to the Middleware Product itself, 
then any Middleware that provides updates without changing the user 
interface is not covered. For example, MS releases service packs for 
software, which fix bugs in the operation of the software (for 
example, how a program utilities memory) but do not change the user 
interface. Therefore it this interpretation applies, then Middleware 
that does not include updates to the user interface would not meet 
the definition. At a minimum, I recommend the definition of 
``user interface'' be clarified'', and also that this 
particular part of the definition of Middleware be revised, should 
``user interface'' apply to the Middleware Product itself.
    The forgoing discussion on Definition J concerning trademarking 
also holds for Definition K. However, note that Middleware Products 
must also be considered part of a ``Windows Operating System 
Product''. As that term is defined in the proposed agreement 
(see discussion of Definition U below), software that would 
otherwise be considered Middleware Products may not be if 1) it was 
NEVER distributed separately from the operating system or 2) MS 
defines the operating system product as not including that software. 
Definition N, and the requirement for distributing one million 
copies of a software product in the last year for the definition to 
apply, in my opinion, prevents smaller ISVs and individuals from 
receiving the protections contemplated by the proposed agreement. 
One of my primary concerns is that since individuals and companies 
cannot seek protection or redress under the proposed agreement 
unless their products meet the distribution requirement, MS can 
suppress competition from these products by the same methods it has 
in the past, and also prevent these products from reaching a 
critical distribution where they could become a direct threat to MS. 
For example, Opera is a web browser that competes with Internet 
Explorer. Unless Opera meets the distribution requirements, MS could 
prevent Opera developers from obtaining necessary information they 
require to provide the same capabilities--or better--that 
MS puts in Internet Explorer. Therefore, Opera could conceivably 
disappear from use, restricting consumer choice and competition. The 
USDOJ (on page 21 of the CIS) defends this provision, arguing that 
products that have not been demonstrated as being competitive and 
chat may be unknown to MS do not deserve protection under the 
proposed agreement. However, as I stated, this provides incentive to 
MS to crush any possible competition before it can grow''. to 
be significant (which can occur very quickly), and I strongly doubt 
that MS would be unaware of any software that is rapidly being 
adopted by consumers. A much lower threshold, such as 1000 copies or 
20,000 copies, make more sense to me, and would better achieve the 
same intent without unduly burdening MS.
    Definition U is for ``Windows Operating System 
Product''. MS, and MS alone, defines what constitutes a Windows 
Operating System Product. Therefore, as discussed above, MS has the 
ability to control what is considered Middleware and Middleware 
Products, and thus the overall scope of the proposed agreement, by 
how it defines a Windows Operating System Product. There must be a 
more restricted definition, for example, core services that required 
for an application to function or everything that is included on an 
installation CD (although as previously discussed, that particular 
definition is subject to manipulation as well), rather than MS being 
allowed to define the term to its best advantage.
    Recommendations: I recommend that the Court reject the proposed 
agreement as written. The proposed agreement fails to meet the basic 
requirement, articulated by the Appeals Court, that any agreement 
provide benefits and promote competition for consumers. Nothing in 
this agreement directly benefits consumers, and all the of indirect 
benefits depend on the willingness of independent companies to 
innovate in a way that will benefit consumers. If the proposed 
agreement is approved by the Court, the only beneficiaries of the 
proposed agreement may be the 20 largest OEMs, various IAPs and 
ICPs, and some ISVs and IHVs, but even that is not certain, based on 
MS'' past practices, and the number of limitations in the 
proposed agreement as discussed above.
    Furthermore, a number of provisions will inhibit enforcement of 
this proposed agreement, should MS violate it. Therefore, it is very 
conceivable that the proposed agreement may only serve as a 
toothless tiger--ignored by MS, and unenforceable by the 
Plaintiffs. If the Court wishes to use the proposed agreement as a 
framework for injunctive relief, I recommend any proposed agreement 
or injunction include the following changes:
    1. MS should be prohibited from retaliating against any company 
that files a complaint alleging a violation of any proposed 
agreement or injunction, whether or not the complaint is pursued or 
upheld. However, MS would be allowed to seek restitution from a 
company that filed a complaint only if it could show bad faith or 
reckless disregard on the part of the company that filed the 
complaint.
    2. MS would be allowed to cancel licenses for Windows software 
issued to any company

[[Page 28005]]

that would be protected under any proposed agreement or injunction, 
but only after demonstrating to either a majority of the Plaintiffs 
or the Court it had a legitimate business interest in doing so.
    3. Provide public access to royalty and licensing information 
for companies that would be covered under any agreement or 
injunction. Specific company identification need not be disclosed. 
Define what is reasonable in terms of volume licensing.
    4. Specify that verifiable criteria, as used in the proposed 
agreement, must be approved by a majority of the Plaintiffs or the 
Court as being non-discriminatory; that is, MS must not be permitted 
to use criteria that it knows gives it an unfair advantage over 
other vendor's products.
    5. Expand the coverage to protect more than just the 20 largest 
OEMs, and provide benefits to end-users and businesses who purchase 
Windows Operating System Products at the retail level, or through 
distributors in bulk.
    6. Define ``Initial Boot Sequence''.
    7. Clarify that for operating systems releases prior to the 
twelve month window or Windows XP Service Pack 1, the requirement 
for releasing operating system documentation and APIs is the same, 
and that the last beta requirement only applies to operating systems 
released after that milestone.
    8. Clarify what is considered a new version and what is 
considered a major version. Any definition should not allow 
manipulation by MS.
    9. Eliminate the loopholes on disclosure of communication 
protocols by eliminating the requirements that they be included in 
an operating system distribution.
    10. Allow MS to withhold information on APIs and other 
information related to anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, 
digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems ONLY 
when complying with a ``lawful order'' of a federal agency 
or any court.
    11. Overturn current agreements between an ISV or IHV and MS 
that restrict the ability of independent companies to promote or 
develop software that competes with MS, unless MS can demonstrate to 
a majority of the Plaintiffs or the Court that any such agreement 
does not unduly stifle competition.
    12. Prohibit MS from structuring joint development efforts with 
an ISV or OEM that prevent competition unless MS can demonstrate to 
a majority of the Plaintiffs or the Court that such restrictions 
serve a bona fide business purpose for a reasonable period of time.
    13. Prohibit fixed percentage agreements with IAPs, regardless 
of the commercial feasibility of distributing rival products.
    14. Close loopholes in the definition ou Middleware and 
Middleware Products as they relate to ``user interfaces'' 
(at a minimum define what is meant by ``user interface''), 
whether they are trademarked or not, whether they are part of the 
operating system product or not, and whether they are downloaded or 
included with operating system distributions.
    15. Require MS to allow removal of Middleware and Middleware 
Products only on a product by product basis, not on an ``All 
MS'' or ``All Non-MS'' basis. and
    16. Eliminate the exceptions that allow MS to invoke MS 
Middleware Products in the case of a server maintained by MS.
    17. Eliminate the requirements that other companies must allow 
licensing of their IP to MS, or agree to restrictions on 
distribution of products that may be based on MS IP, unless MS can 
demonstrate to either a majority of the Plaintiffs or the Court a 
bona fide business purpose in imposing these requirements.
    18. Eliminate restrictions on public release of information by 
the Plaintiffs which might otherwise only be released as it may 
relate to an enforcement action, and under certain other conditions. 
MS would be notified in advance and given an opportunity to appeal 
release of the information to the Court.
    19. Include a requirement that at least one member of the TC 
must be an expert in software design and development, and at least 
one member an expert in computer system network operating system or 
network application administration.
    20. Clarify the definition of ``competitor'' as it 
relates to TC employment.
    21. Eliminate restrictions on public release of information or 
statements by the TC, similar to that for the Plaintiffs. The TC 
would still not be allowed to release information deemed 
confidential by MS without MS'' approval, the approval of a 
majority of the Plaintiffs, or the Court. In a situation where 
release of such information is contemplated, MS would be afforded 
adequate opportunity to appeal a decision of the Plaintiffs to the 
Court. Note that the reason for allowing the release of confidential 
information in this manner is to prevent MS from arbitrarily 
considering all information confidential, and therefore not 
releasable at all, while still affording MS some protection for 
legitimately confidential information.
    22. Eliminate provisions that prohibit admission of any work 
product, finding, or recommendation by the TC in an enforcement 
action against MS for violation of any proposed agreement or 
injunction.
    23. Provide for, in the event that MS engages in a pattern of 
willful and systematic violations, a more meaningful set of 
penalties. For example, MS may have to rebate to consumers, based 
upon proper proof of purchase, a flat amount for any operating 
system purchased over the period of the agreement, whether the 
purchase was made at retail or via purchase of an OEM system with 
the operating system pre-installed.
    24. Reduce the distribution requirement in the definition of 
Non-MS Middleware Product to 1,000 or 20,000 copies.
    25. Change the definition of ``Windows Operating System 
Product'', so MS cannot decide what constitutes a Windows 
Operating System Product.
    I also recommend consideration of possible some alternative 
provisions, which were not part of the proposed agreement; however, 
some of these are being pushed by the states that demurred on the 
proposed agreement:
    1. A requirement that MS bundle Non-MS Middleware Products with 
its operating system products. This would primarily benefit those 
consumers that purchase retail versions of MS operating systems, and 
those who buy systems from OEMs who choose not to integrate non-MS 
Middleware Products. MS would be allowed to charge a reasonable fee 
to ISVs whose products they incorporate to defray the costs of 
integrating such Middleware products into its operating system 
distribution packages.
    2. A requirement that MS structure volume licenses with OEMs in 
such a way that OEMs must allow end-users to elect not to purchase a 
Windows operating system with their PCs at all.
    3. A requirement that MS provide a ``secure facility'' 
for inspection of code. This facility could be used to keep 
producers of non-Microsoft middleware up to date on integration and 
interoperability issues with MS operating systems.
    4. A requirement that MS make Internet Explorer ``open 
sourced''--that is, MS would be required to disclose and 
license all source code for all Browser products and Browser 
functionality.
    5. A requirement that MS distribute with all of its operating 
systems a version of the Java Virtual Machine (or runtime 
environment) that conforms to Sun Microsystems'' Java 
specification. MS distributed a non-compatible version with previous 
operating systems, and stopped distributing it with Windows XP, 
although it does have the same non-compatible Java Virtual Machine 
available for download. The reason that MS cited for not including 
it in Windows XP is that it was prohibited by Sun from doing so 
(which is true), although Sun has long expressed willingness to 
allow MS to distribute a Java Virtual Machine as long as it conforms 
to the Java standard. Since MS has refused to do so, MS is 
technically prohibited from distributing the Java Virtual Machine it 
has.
    6. A requirement that MS only incorporate standard 
communications protocols in its products. A standard communications 
protocol is one that has been ratified by either the International 
Standards Organization, or the Internet Engineering Task Force. MS 
would be required to adhere to the strict requirements of the 
ratified standard, although it could at any time propose new 
standards or modifications to existing standards for adoption by 
either body.
    7. A requirement that MS make its consumer operating systems 
``open sourced''--that is, MS would be required to 
disclose and license all source code for its consumer operating 
systems. Of all the proposals, this is the one that would most 
benefit consumers, because it is the only option that truly promotes 
innovation and competition at the operating system level, and would 
give users a real choice in operating systems, a choice, that most 
likely, will not require them to give up applications they have 
chosen to use, or lock them out of potential future applications. 
Summary: I believe we are all 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.

[[Page 28006]]

    Any agreement, or any injunction, must ultimately answer the 
question .... How do consumers benefit from this?'' The USDOJ 
has not satisfactorily answered this question in their CIS; they 
have focused on the benefits for companies. As written, the proposed 
agreement only indirectly, at best, benefits consumers.
    In addition, the proposed agreement focuses too much on 
Middleware and Middleware Products and not enough on operating 
systems. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals have noted 
that a reliance on Middleware and Middleware Products is not a 
substitute for remedying an illegal monopoly on operating systems.
    I believe that the Court has made a well-intended effort to 
speedily resolve this case by asking the parties to come to a 
proposed agreement. However, as I hope I have demonstrated, the 
proposed agreement falls far short of what is necessary to benefit 
consumers, and redress illegal monopolistic behavior. Therefore, the 
Court needs to look at alternatives and changes to the agreement 
that will ultimately benefit consumers by changing MS'' illegal 
monopolistic practices. For the Court's benefit, I have provided a 
list of changes that I believe will benefit consumers.
    Jeffrey Harris



MTC-00027388

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir:
    As both a Microsoft stockholder and product consumer I find the 
on going legal proceedings against the company unsettling.
    At first thought I see it as an attempt by the legal community 
to go after a ``Cash Cow'' gleaning as much of the 
companies financial resources as possible in the name of protecting 
the consumer. Cases brought against other companies in the past have 
garnered very little for the consumer but have fattened the wallets 
of legal community.
    As an investor in Microsoft I have watched the value of my 
holdings plummet, at times, by more than fifty percent. This loss in 
wealth, due to the constant legal battles, has not settled very well 
with me as, I am sure, it has with others who have portions of their 
retirement savings tied to the companies fortune.
    As a consumer of Microsoft products I don't really understand 
the problem. I have had both MSN and AOL. installed in our machines 
and have chosen to use AOL. I have Microsoft's Money program 
installed on our new machine from the manufacturer but have chosed 
to use another financial program without encountering any problems 
from the company. When we first bought a computer I chose to use 
another word processing program because I found it better than the 
Microsoft product that was installed from the factory. I don't see 
where Microsoft has caused me any damage as a consumer. All you have 
to do is use your head a little bit and decide what works best for 
you.
    I have to comment on the business practices that the company has 
been accused of using over the years. Having been in the business 
community for over thirty years I can well understand why the 
company might have acted on the defensive in its dealings with other 
companies. It is a dog eat dog world and if you don't protect 
yourself then another company will cut your throat. Ethics in the 
business world are a facade used to get whatever you can for 
yourself and screw everyone else. So I don't see where the company 
acted any different than how any of its computitors would have under 
the circumstances. Just look at what AOL is doing to small web site 
providers and the Enron case.
    In closing, I hope that there is a reasonable settlement to the 
case that allows the company to spend its resources developing 
product that will improve the productivity of the country and not on 
defending itself against a continuing parade of legal battles.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony V. Ladd



MTC-00027389

From: Ben Levi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 27, 2002
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    United States Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I concur with the Consumers for Computing Choice, who believe 
that any settlement or Final Judgment must include remedies that 
provide: (1) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run the 
70,000 existing Windows applications without modification on all 
other operating systems.
    (2) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native 
versions of Microsoft Office applications on all other operating 
systems.
    (3) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or 
more of the four Office applications with competing applications, 
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services 
with any Microsoft application.
    (4) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native 
versions of Explorer, Media Player and other Microsoft Internet 
applications on all other operating systems.
    (5) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or 
more Microsoft Internet applications with competing applications, 
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services 
with any Microsoft application.
    (6) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace any 
component or feature in any Microsoft software product with superior 
or special purpose components or features.
    (7) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run any Microsoft 
software on computers that do not have Intel-compatible 
microprocessors.
    (8) A simple, affordable, and reliable way for software 
developers to access all the information they need to create 
products that offer consumers these choices.
    (9) A way to ensure that original equipment manufacturers 
provide consumers with equal access to computers with alternative 
operating systems, productivity applications, and Internet 
applications.
    (10) A ``crown jewel'' provision establishing such 
serious consequences for non-compliance that Microsoft will not 
attempt to evade the necessary disclosure requirements and other 
mandates.
    Thank you for considering my views.
    Robert Ben Levi
    151 Wildcat Lane
    Boulder, CO 80304
    303-546-0679



MTC-00027390

From: Mitchell Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Settlement Fails to Remedy Antitrust Violations and 
Fails to Protect the National Interest
    The Proposed Settlement Should Be Rejected
    1. Microsoft has maintained its operating system monopoly 
through illegal means. The proposed Settlement suffers from two 
critical flaws: it allows Microsoft to maintain all the benefits of 
its illegal activities, and it will be ineffective in preventing 
Microsoft from continuing its actions to maintain its monopoly 
position.
    2. The activities likely to maintain Microsoft's operating 
system monopoly in the next few years are not the same activities 
that illegally maintained it during the past. The proposed 
Settlement may perhaps prohibit continuation of some of the 
activities that benefited Microsoft in the 1990's, but it will do 
little if anything to prohibit the activities useful in illegally 
maintaining the operating system monopoly today.
    3. The Microsoft operating system monopoly is bad for our 
national interest. The Microsoft system is notoriously poor at 
protecting data, and is far behind other available options. 
Assisting Microsoft to maintain its monopoly position, as does this 
proposed Settlement, makes it very, very difficult for citizens, 
consumers and businesses to take steps to protect their sensitive 
personal and business data.
    4. The proposed Settlement threatens innovation. Innovation in 
software development is critical to our national interest. 
Significant innovation in software development comes through the 
open source, free software and educational communities--this is 
how the Internet was born. Similarly, the proposed Settlement harms 
consumers by discrimination against non-profit software development 
activities. For example, section III(J)(2) of the proposed 
Settlement allows Microsoft to withhold information from those who 
do not meet Microsoft's criteria for the ``viability of its 
business.'' Section III(D) specifies that Microsoft disclose 
information regarding APIs to /commercial/interests. This language 
could be interpreted to allow Microsoft to withhold information from 
open source and free software groups--groups which are at the 
forefront of a great deal of software innovation. And also to 
withhold information from those software development teams most 
likely to provide a

[[Page 28007]]

choice to citizens and consumers. Many activities by non-profit 
groups provide the foundation for commercial activities as well as 
enormous benefit to consumers. Any suggestion that these groups 
could be excluded from whatever protection the proposed Settlement 
offers should be eliminated.
    5. The specifications for Microsoft APIs and file formats must 
be public. Providing subsets of this information to subsets of the 
development community does not provide an effective remedy. Our 
national interest and well-being as citizens depends on innovation 
and choice, particularly in the way we handle digital data. The 
illegal activities of Microsoft threaten this well-being, and the 
proposed Settlement is a monumental failure on all fronts. I urge 
the Court to resist the allure of a speedy answer, and to reject the 
proposed Settlement.
    W. Mitchell Baker
    2704 All View Way
    Belmont, CA 94002



MTC-00027391

From: Mariam Rangwala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:5l pm
Subject: microsoft vs netscape public opinion, as follows:
    January 27, 2002
    To All Who This May Concern:
    I think that the Microsoft Company should not settle because 
they have already settled and agreed with the federal government and 
several other states on a criminal suit. This civil suit against 
Microsoft is for the financial compensation of Netscape. This claim 
against Microsoft will be hard to prove because Microsoft is an 
extremely prosperous and large company. Also, Netscape had taken 
many missteps in the marketing and product development, which 
enabled Microsoft to provide a continually better browser. 
Technology changes very quickly and the importance of taking 
advantage of solidifying and maintaining market positions is 
essential for each company to succeed. Netscape was not able to do 
these things. In addition, this matter is several years old and it 
would be very difficult to prove civil liabilities and new 
technologies that are constantly changing, since a great deal of the 
matter is ``blurred.'' Finally, Netscape is not an 
independent country. AOL Time Warner purchased it and this company 
knew what they were buying since they bought Netscape less then two 
years ago.
    ``In 1899, Rockefeller, founder of the powerful Standard 
Oil Company, testified before a congressional commission that was 
investigating industrial combinations.'' This case describes 
the positive things about the combination of companies and the large 
amount of money that monopolies bring in. Also, money helps the 
economy grow and prosper; the idea of large businesses was that 
anyone can rise up to become rich and therefore this was a great way 
to have businesses.
    This relates to the current because both companies were being 
sued because they were guilty of being monopolists. This is a crime 
because monopolies can take over the business world because they 
have large amounts of power, and many smaller companies must abide 
their rules. This makes monopolists rich companies who can set all 
the rules and have every other company listen to them.
    Sincerely,
    Mariam Rangwala



MTC-00027392

From: Vince Fosterknows
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Drop the MS fiasco, which was started without merit. Get on with 
the critical business at hand in putting terrorists behind bars!!!



MTC-00027393

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this comment because I received a telephone 
solicitation last evening, requesting that I visit a web site and 
compose one from there in favor of the proposed settlement. I do not 
favor the proposed settlement. I read, understood, and agreed with 
the findings of fact and law reached by Judge Jackson, and favor the 
remedies proposed by him. I offer the following suggestions for 
improvement:
    The prohibited conduct enumerated in section III.2 should 
include discriminating against an OEM for selling a personal 
computer with another operating system installed, regardless of 
whether a Microsoft operating system is also bootable on that 
computer. Microsoft should be prohibited from requiring the 
installation of one of its operating systems on all PCs sold by an 
OEM or licensee. Licensing fees should be based on volume alone, not 
on percentage of sales. There should be provision for the 
preservation of records for the term of the consent decree. It would 
not be unreasonable to preserve daily backups of the corporate e-
mail systems, on DVD for example, to ensure that evidence of further 
violations of antitrust law would be more easily documented.
    Five years seems too short a period for supervision of the 
company. I would think an eight year term, with the possibility for 
two three-year extensions, more appropriate.
    Francis E. Johnson
    10 Alfred Drive
    Poughkeepsie, NY 12603



MTC-00027394

From: SlashDevNull
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing to protest the settlement of the Microsoft case. 
Microsoft is has illegally leverage their illegally created monopoly 
in Operating Systems to create a monopoly in browsers and office 
productivity applications. I do not believe that the DOJ should 
settle the case and should push for a breakup of microsoft. I 
believe the breakup should be into three parts; Operating Systems, 
Business applications, and internet related technologies. I also 
believe that microsoft should be forced to sell off their 
programming language division and be forced to use a third party1s 
tools. This would ensure that microsoft could no longer put other 
companies at a disadvantage by ?hiding1 APIs that only they have 
access and knowledge.
    Microsoft has hurt the consumer repeatedly by their predatory 
practices and they should be reigned in. The decision should be more 
than just a fine. No matter how large the fine is, if the decision 
does not force microsoft to stop their illegal practices, then the 
decision will be viewed by microsoft simply as the cost of doing 
business. And no matter the amount of the fine, microsoft would view 
a fine as a welcome and preferential decision.
    This is the DOJ1s chance to level the playing field for all of 
microsoft1s competitors and to establish choice as an option. Please 
do not waste it.
    Thank you,
    David



MTC-00027395

From: Leslie Gialamas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:51 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    CC: 
[email protected]@inetgw
    Judge:
    I think that Microsoft has dominated almost all computer based 
industries for long enough. They have been using these 
``monopolistic practices'' to work against the government, 
and for that they should be punished to the maximum extent of the 
law. There are many other companies with the same technology as 
microsoft, who want a chance to make it in the computer industry. 
Microsoft should be broken down and not allowed to maintain their 
position in this high tech industry. Competition is a crucial part 
of any business, Microsoft needs to feel the pressures of having a 
competitor. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Leslie Gialamas
    Phone # (213) 741-1886
    Los Angeles, CA



MTC-00027396

From: Mike Droney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    This is a letter regarding the nature of the settlement between 
microsoft corp. and the US government concerning the anticompetitive 
practices that the softweare company has practiced for years. I 
believe the settlement does very little to open the way for other 
companies to compete against microsoft. The language used in PFJ are 
obscure and vague at best, allowing certain loopholes to be 
exploited to the benefit of Microsoft in circumventing the various 
agreements reached between the two sides. For instance, the 
settlement does force microsoft to reveal its APIs to the 
competition. However, the inverse of this is true also, with the 
competition having to do the same with their software. This leaves 
smaller companies at risk from the same

[[Page 28008]]

predatory practices that have been the trademark of microsoft, i.e. 
microsoft, now having access to foreign ATIs, may 
``plagiarise'' the products, thus. According to James 
Mathewson's column at Computer User.com, this is ``indicative 
of the whole agreement''. According to the same journalist, the 
supposed $1.4 blillion dollar computer and software settlement 
donation will help to enhance Microsoft's philantropic image.
    Where is the justice or rationale for such a settlement, and who 
is the real winner in this outcome. Not alternative software 
companies, and certainly not the public.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Droney.



MTC-00027397

From: Joe Reed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As an advocate of individual rights and capitalism, I am deeply 
disturbed by the DOJ's attack on Microsoft in the name of consumer 
protection. I do not believe the government has the right to dictate 
how Microsoft builds and markets its products, nor do I believe the 
government has the right to tell me what software I have on my 
computer. Microsoft has committed no crime, and I as a consumer need 
no such protection from the government.
    Microsoft reached its current market position through years of 
extensive research and development, innovation, and careful 
marketing (not to mention a lot of hard work). Microsoft never 
forced anyone to buy their products, and in fact has no legal power 
to do so. Microsoft's sales were the result of voluntary agreements 
that were reached by the mutual consent of both parties, into which 
the government has no right to interve. Millions of customers, 
myself included, have made a voluntary conscious decision to 
purchase Microsoft products because of the values they provide 
(e.g., features, compatibility, upgradeability, stability, etc.), 
not because we were coerced or threatened.
    Microsoft has the right to do whatever it wants with its 
products, including adding features it determines will enhance the 
value of its products, selling or licensing its products to whomever 
it chooses on whatever terms are agreed to by both sides, and 
revealing or concealing design details as it sees fit.
    Microsoft's products are not public property to be designed or 
dispensed at the whim of its competitors or the government. In 
addition, this case is further flawed in that it was brought about 
as a result of complaints by Microsoft's competitors, not by an 
outcry from consumers. And the proposed ``solutions'' will 
do nothing but prop up Microsoft's unsuccessful competitors who have 
chosen to compete in the courtroom rather than in the market.
    The government's number one job is to protect individual rights. 
In this case, the government has not only miserably failed to do so, 
but is in fact become the biggest threat to individual rights. This 
case should be thrown out, and all anti-trust regulations should be 
immediately repealed.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Reed Friendswood, Texas



MTC-00027398

From:[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:53pm
Subject: hi
    I feel that what microsoft is doing is wrong. Why should that 
company be able to have the power to avoid sharing their product 
with other companies so they can also develop similar software. Just 
because microsoft is a big and powerful company doesnt mean they 
have the right to peform monopoly. If other companies can not then 
why should microsoft have the right to. Also the fact that they are 
denying that they have and its taking so long for the courts to 
press charges on them is wrong. If it were another company that was 
not as popular they would have been out of buisness. from, chrystal 
torres
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027399

From: Jim Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is woefully inadequate.
    I'm a long-time computer user (30 years), a computer programmer, 
a part-time system administrator in my office, and the administrator 
of a home network of Macintoshes, Unix machines, and a Windows 
machine. The settlement does little or nothing to address key 
Microsoft holdings which buttress Microsoft's monopoly and make it 
well-nigh unassailable: Microsoft proprietary application 
interfaces, protocols,and file formats. I wish to focus primarily on 
file formats. In my workplace the use of products which compete with 
Microsoft products--OS other than Windows, word processors 
other than Microsoft Word, spreadsheets other than Micro- soft 
Excel, and web browsers other than Microsoft Explorer--is 
difficult and sometimes simply not possible because no competing 
vendor has products which are fully compatible with the Microsoft 
file formats.
    These competing products are not fully compatible because 
Microsoft does not release specifications for its file formats. 
Competing vendors must reverse-engineer Microsoft file formats, 
which change every time Microsoft releases new versions of its 
applications, typically about every year or two, and this process of 
reverse-engineering takes time.
    Because any product which is less than fully compatible with the 
monopoly product is at a competitive disadvantage, every product 
which competes with a Microsoft monopoly product is automatically at 
a competitive dis- advantage, not because of technical inferiority 
or higher cost, but because Microsoft can (and does) act to prevent 
compatibility, rather than competing on the basis of price, 
performance, and other market-differentiating issues, eg security.
    There is no benefit to society when Microsoft locks out 
competition in this way. There is of course no guarantee that 
competing products would eat into Microsoft's market share, but it 
does seem reasonable to believe that Microsoft would be forced to 
compete on price, performance, etc, if the playing field were 
leveled. Microsoft is clearly not competing on price and performance 
at this time.
    Indeed, this behavior is reminiscent of Bell System behavior in 
the 1950s and 1960s which led to the Carterfone case. Microsoft need 
not threaten to disconnect customers who use non-monopoly products 
as did AT&T): these customers are automatically at risk of 
disconnection from the monopoly customer ``network'' 
because Microsoft denies the vendors of non-monopoly products the 
information they must have if they are to produce products which are 
compatible with monopoly products, and hence able to compete with 
monopoly products. In effect, file formats are the 
``interconnection specifications'' which the Bell System 
was compelled to provide (as a monopoly) to vendors who wished to 
compete for telephone business. Microsoft, as a monopoly, should 
likewise be compelled to provide interconnection specifications to 
their applications, so that other vendors can build applications 
which compete on a level playing field with Microsoft's monopoly 
applications.
    Nothing in the settlement addresses file formats. Hence if this 
settlement is approved, Microsoft will continue to enjoy a monopoly 
in the applications space. And while their OS monopoly is not 
seriously threatened at this time, the Microsoft applications 
monopoly strengthens the Microsoft OS monopoly.
    I suggest that Microsoft should be compelled to release 
specifications for their file formats on a timely basis--and 
that ``timely'' be explicitly defined so that competing 
vendors can release compatible products at the same time that 
Microsoft releases new versions of its monopoly products. I suggest 
that access to these specifications should be open to everyone by 
publication on an open web site. I suggest that any competitor 
should be able to obtain a copy of the specifications either as a 
printed manual or on a CDROM (eg in pdf format) at a nominal cost-
of-materials charge.
    I suggest that updates and specification changes to these file 
formats should be made available on a timely basis--and again, 
that ``timely'' be defined explicitly, so that competing 
vendors can retain compatibility with monopoly applications.
    I suggest that stiff penalties should be put in place so that if 
Micro- soft fails to release file format specifications in 
accordance with the constraints put in place by the court--and 
Microsoft's past behavior indicates that they will drive a truck 
through any constraints if they believe they can get away with 
it--then Microsoft should be penalized sufficiently severely 
that the the cost of doing business in defiance of the court's 
orders will not long be sustainable. Any constraints on Microsoft's 
behavior must have teeth in them.
    I suggest that there should be a watchdog group to which 
competitors can bring complaints of non-compliance by Microsoft's 
with these provisions. I further suggest that this watchdog group 
have the author- ity to

[[Page 28009]]

direct Microsoft to release documents immediately, and to impose 
monetary penalties on Microsoft for non-compliance. Because 
Microsoft has always used time to its advantage, I suggest that 
penalties accrue from the time Microsoft has failed to respond to 
requests for information, and accrue during any appeals process.
    I further suggest that the release of incomplete, incorrect, 
misleading, or unusable information (for example, the release of 
specifications on Hollerith cards) incur punitive fines above and 
beyond any fines imposed for failing to comply with timelines 
specified for release of specifications. Microsoft should be 
compelled to release to competing vendors whatever specifications 
are provided to its own programmers simply because Microsoft is a 
monopoly. Other vendors cannot compete on a level playing field with 
the Microsoft monopoly without this protection. Although I have 
focussed on file formats (because those affect me most directly in 
my work) much the same is true of application programming interfaces 
(APIs) and protocols--these are the interconnection 
specifications between applications and the Windows operating system 
in the former case, and between services and clients in the latter.
    I suggest that the same constraints I have proposed for 
Microsoft file formats also be applied to APIs and protocols.
    To go slightly further, Microsoft must be prohibited from 
sabotaging open protocols such as http by what Microsoft officers 
have called ``de-commodification'' of such 
protocols--willful Microsoft changes to established protocols 
which result in non-Microsoft products failing to produce expected 
results (``being incompatible'') when dealing with 
information produced by Microsoft products. Microsoft must be made 
to play by the same rules as everyone else, lest they drive everyone 
else out of the game.
    Microsoft should not be permitted to use their monopoly control 
of interconnection specifications as a barrier to competitors 
entering the market, just as the Bell System was not permitted to 
use its monopoly customer base and control of interconnection 
specifications to exclude non-Bell vendors from the marketplace.
    Respectfully,
    J.H.Snyder
    [email protected]



MTC-00027400

From: Akira Negi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    With respect to the current Microsoft anti-trust case, I urge 
you to NOT settle for anything less than a split up of the company. 
There are a number of incidents that lead me to believe this, but 
the most of recent such event was when Windows 95 based computer had 
a problem when adding a hardware. Specifically, Windows 95 OS would 
crash every time it tried to find a new driver for the new hardware. 
After some investigation, I concluded that the only chance was for 
me to reinstall the Windows software. I then found out that it was 
not possible to do that without going back to the DOS prompt, 
because Internet Explorer 4.0 was loaded on the computer. I tried to 
remove it, but Windows refused to let me do so.
    This is a clear example of Microsoft forcing its OS and its 
internet browser both onto the uses at the same time. Seeing that it 
was not possible to fix a problem I had at hand without going back 
to the DOS prompt (which defeats the whole purpose of using Windows 
in the first place), it appears to me that Microsoft would benefit 
from stopping its practice of using its market share in the OS to 
force applications onto the users--at least the problems would 
be solvable without taking a brute approach. Moreover, if forced to 
consider products more independently, perhaps Microsoft would 
consider builing more stable OS and more stable internet browsers, 
which would have eliminated my problem to begin with.
    It is my opinion that if Microsoft were two (or more) separate 
corporations, it would be forced to create their programs in a more 
modular way with clear interfaces, which would in turn open the 
doors for other software companies to create a similar, competitive 
products. I'm sure I'm not the only person who have experiecnced 
problems with softwares crashing and hanging up the OS. No other 
industry would accept a product that would have to be rebooted every 
day or so to keep everything operating normally. Having a clear 
interface between the OS and applications would make it easier to 
build a more stable product. For the exact reasons stated above, I 
do not deem a small penalty to be a sufficient outcome in this anti-
trust case. Microsoft's anti-competitive practices must be stopped 
now, or we risk losing many of its great competitors, including 
Netscape and Correll (maker of Word Perfect). Our society cannot 
afford such a loss. We need those competitors to keep producing 
their respective products in order to have improvements and 
advancements in softwares. I would find any result that does not put 
an end to Microsoft's current business practices utterly 
unacceptable.
    Thank you for your time, and good luck in the proceedings.
    Sincerely,
    Akira Negi
    912 Cedar Fork Trail
    Chapel Hill, NC 27514 USA
    919-969-7720
    [email protected]



MTC-00027401

From: Scott Currie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a programmer by profession; I have never had any legal 
training or experience. As such, it makes understanding a settlement 
such as the Microsoft Proposed Final Judgment difficult for me. 
However, as the results of this landmark case will impact my chosen 
profession for years to come, I have felt compelled to do what I can 
to understand this judgment. While I do not grasp the entire scope 
of the document, I have seen what I view as some problems with the 
wording therein. These flaws very well may allow Microsoft to avoid 
the intended punishment, and continue its monopolistic behavior.
    One of the few real competitors to Microsoft's products are the 
loosely organized people who contribute to various open source 
projects, such as Linux, Apache, and Samba. This judgment does very 
little to protect these projects. For example, the Samba project 
develops networking products that interoperate seamlessly with 
Microsoft products. By using the Samba product, one can create a 
network server that runs any variety of operating systems, and yet 
fully functions with Microsoft products as well. This type of 
interoperability is very important to open competition, as the 
server administrator can choose the superior products even if they 
are from different vendors, and expect the network to work well 
together.
    I believe that the clause in the judgment requiring Microsoft to 
publish their Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) is probably 
the single best way to ensure competition. If the ground rules for 
how programs communicate are public knowledge, then there will be 
true competition, and the best product will be the one chosen by the 
users. I believe there are gaping holes in the wording of this 
clause. I understand the intent behind the security exceptions to 
disclosure in Section III.J.
    However, in this networked era in technology, nearly any 
transactions carried out by computers are potentially security 
risks. I am concerned that with Microsoft's reluctance to give up 
their monopoly, they may claim that releasing key components of, for 
instance, authentication schemes would compromise the security of 
their products. However, the piece that was withheld was also a key 
component that a competing project such as Samba would need to be 
able to interoperate seamlessly.
    Another concern is that the publication of these schemes will be 
under a commercial model. The above open source projects are 
distributed freely across the Internet, and do not have a per-user 
charge. Yet the Proposed Final Judgment would allow Microsoft to 
charge money for access to their APIs. When a project such as Samba 
is mainly programmed as a hobby, and given away with no concern for 
profit, the commercial licensing of these APIs will preclude the 
open source project from benefiting from the settlement.
    A final concern I have is that the enforcement committee does 
not have legal authority to impose punishments should Microsoft 
choose to violate the terms of this agreement. A According to 
Section IV.D.4.d, ``No work product, findings, or 
recommendation 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.''
    It makes no sense to disallow the findings of an oversight 
committee in a legal complaint. I believe when a company has proven 
itself to be opposed to voluntary steps to avoid monopolistic 
behavior, there should be a mechanism for the oversight committee to 
enforce violations of the PFJ.

[[Page 28010]]

    In light of these concerns with the settlements reached, I do 
not believe that the Proposed Final Judgment will accomplish the re-
establishment of competition in the technology sector. I call upon 
you to reject this settlement, or at least address these concerns 
that will enable Microsoft to continue to engage in monopolistic 
behavior, despite this Final Judgment. Thank you for the opportunity 
to comment.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Currie, Programmer Analyst
    PS I have also faxed these comments to the appropriate number.



MTC-00027402

From: Michelle Trostler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is not in the public interest because 
consumers need freedom of choice to decide, without the 
intereference of Microsoft, what products are on their computers. 
The settlement must provide ways for any combination of non-
Microsoft operating systems, applications, and software components 
to run properly with Microsoft products.
    This is so basic. Please do not bend to the will of big business 
while compromising the interest of common people.
    Thank you,
    Michelle Trostler
    Sunnyvale, CA



MTC-00027403

From: Dave Michaelian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    Though I am a huge believer in free markets, I do not believe 
the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) is a the best solution.
    Microsoft is a wonderful company staffed by wonderful people, 
but they are guilty of some very grave anti-competitive violations.
    Moreover, the PFJ does not provide an effective enforcement 
mechanism for its remedies.
    Best,
    Dave Michaelian
    CEO, BridgePath Corporation
    Campus Crusade for Christ @ USC
    Campus Director
    2643 Magnolia Ave.
    LA, CA 90007
    [email protected]
    213-748-8141
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,dkleinkn@yahoo...



MTC-00027404

From: Steve Pietrowicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello.
    I'm writing to you concerning the proposed settlement between 
the Justice Department and Microsoft.
    I believe it is wholly inadequate, and offers no real remedy 
against Microsoft's past and current business practices.
    I've been working in the industry for the last 17 years, and 
started working with personal computers in 1978. I've worked for a 
number of different companies, and worked on a variety of computer 
platforms, both large and small. Throughout that time, as a 
consumer, I've seen a number of things that Microsoft has done to 
maintain it's stranglehold on personal computers. I'm going to 
address one of those, because I believe it goes to the heart of how 
Microsoft treats what it views as competing platforms, and how it 
will continue to behave unless this issue is addressed.
    The Java programming platform allows programs to be written 
which will run on multiple platforms, without needing a special 
version of the program for each of those programs. This completely 
eliminates the need for special versions of the same program for 
different platforms. Instead of having a version for Microsoft 
windows, another version for the Apple Macintosh, and yet a third 
for a UNIX system, there is only one version that is needed. Many 
many companies have licensed the Java programming language, 
including Microsoft. However, instead of adhering to the license 
agreements it made with Sun, Microsoft came out with it's own 
incompatible version of the Java programming language, at first 
without telling programmers that it was incompatible. I say, 
``at first'', because it wasn't until there were a number 
of news stories that pointed this out to programmers. Microsoft's 
response was that there version was an improvement of Java, when in 
fact, the sole purpose was to make versions that only worked on the 
Microsoft platform. In the end, Microsoft has decided to drop Java 
all together, and Java is no longer included in the Windows 
operating systems it recently released (Windows XP).
    What Microsoft did, at the very beginning of Java's popularity, 
was to create a wedge that prevented people from writing programs 
using Microsoft's Java for other platforms, just to keep it's 
monopoly intact. I contend that the sole purpose of their licensing 
the Java platform was use the incompatibilities Microsoft itself 
created to prevent developers from creating software on other 
platforms.
    This has happened time and time again. Look at any of the more 
popular programs that Microsoft viewed as ``threats'' to 
it's existence. Here is a reference to an article of another 
instance of this sort of behavior: http://eatthestate.org/
03-07/MicrosoftPlaysHardball.htm This article describes how 
Microsoft successfully prevented a highly successful competing 
product (vs MSDOS), DR-DOS, from running with Microsoft Windows 3.1. 
From the article:
    ``The plan was to plant code into Windows which would 
``put competitors on a treadmill'' and cause the system to 
``surely crash at some point shortly later.'' In order 
words, Windows would intentionally bomb if it detected DR 
DOS.''
    The article sites that the Department of Justice found this out 
from a memo by Microsoft VP David Cole. The engineers at Microsoft 
that created this code to prevent DR DOS from running even went so 
far as to encrypt part of their work to avoid detection.
    Additionally, in October of 1998, Microsoft was successfully 
able to prevent Compaq computer from allowing Apple to include their 
Quicktime viewer in products it shipped at that time, because of 
``incompatibilities'' with Windows. Microsoft had a 
competing technology, ActiveMovie, which shipped instead.
    I urge you to read the rest of this article, which I've attached 
below. Microsoft has shown time and time again that it will try and 
introduce code or technology into it's products to prevent them from 
becoming successful. It's very important this is addressed. And 
there are several ways to do this.
    First, require that Microsoft ship Sun Microsystem's Java with 
all Windows platforms. This should be a version that passes all 
tests that Sun requires of it's OEMs, and does not include anything 
that would break Java programs if executed on other platforms. This 
is very very important, because while Java was prominently brought 
up in the trail, there is nothing in the DOJ settlement that 
addresses it.
    Second, require that Microsoft publish the complete operating 
system source code to Windows, with (and this is important) the 
tools necessary to build the operating system from source code to 
binary executable. This will prevent Microsoft from creating 
``special code'' that prevents what it views as a 
competing technology, from running.
    Microsoft has shown time and time again, that it can not be 
trusted to ``do the right thing''. The court should set 
into place a judgement that requires it to do so.
    This is only one issue, and one aspect of how Microsoft conducts 
itself. Consider how Microsoft has acted in the past on other 
issues: It required computer manufacturers that sold systems that 
ran Windows to pay royalties on Windows licenses, even though the 
system shipped with another (or without) an operating system; It 
threatened computer manufacturers by saying that it would withhold 
the Windows operating system, unless they agreed with Microsoft's 
terms, forcing computer makers to comply.
    Please carefully consider all the e-mail you've received, and 
draft a new, stronger judgement that the one that DOJ currently 
proposes. Microsoft has already been found to be a monopoly. Please 
take steps that are more than the slap on the wrist that the current 
DOJ proposal is.
    I look back over the years and think of all the companies that 
Microsoft prevented from succeeding because of practices I 
illustrated above. Worse, I think of the number of conference rooms 
I've sat in, where people said things like ``We can't do this 
project. If Microsoft ever decides to do this sort of thing, we'll 
be crushed''. I don't think people that aren't in the computer 
industry realize how often this takes place.
    It's time it stopped.
    Stephen R. Pietrowicz
    January 27, 2001
    Engineer



MTC-00027406

From: Jeremy Praissman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeremy Praissman
7 Wainscott Lane

[[Page 28011]]

East Setauket, NY 11733
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
    As a long time computer user, I waited the June 7th, 2000 
verdict in the Microsoft antitrust case with great anticipation. 
When the ruling was released, it seemed to be a much needed reining 
in of an anticompetitive behemoth that had stifled growth and 
innovation in the computer software industry for years. How far we 
have come in the short year and seven months since then.
    Despite the later unanimous 7-0 decision in the Court of 
Appeals upholding the verdict that Microsoft is a monopoly that 
engaged in anticompetitive practices and thus broke the law, the 
proposed remedy has shrunk considerably in scope and reach, from the 
initial drastic solution of splitting the company, to the current 
consent decree--a mere slap on the wrists. This reversal in the 
DOJ position and Microsoft's fortunes can hardly be seen as random, 
apparently riding hard on the coattails of the recently installed 
Bush administration. Further indication of potential (hidden) 
political influence in this matter is the recent revelation that 
Microsoft has included none of the details of its congressional 
lobbying in information supplied to the court in direct violation of 
the terms of the Tunney Act(http://www.washtech.com/news/regulation/
14834-1.html). Note that Microsoft spends more than $5 million 
a year lobbying congress.
    Regardless of how the current proposed consent decree came to 
be, I believe that if anything, it is certainly --not-- in 
the public interest.
    Many of the issues that must be addressed under antitrust 
legislation, such as ``redistribution of the ill-gotten 
gains'' do not seem to be mentioned at all in the decree. 
Further, the decree is ambiguous in many places and generally weak. 
It seems to in fact condone some of the very behavior that resulted 
in the current antitrust litigation. I will discuss two of the 
problems extant in the proposed consent decree that I feel most 
strongly about.
    The court has acknowledged that one of the most significant 
problems potential competitors to the Microsoft operating system 
monopoly face is the ``Applications Barrier to Entry.'' As 
Microsoft has been so successful in marginalizing non-Microsoft 
operating systems, there are no --companies-- offering a 
viable challenger to Microsoft Windows. Thus it is with 
consternation that I note no clauses catering to the only current 
reasonable challenger: open source software. I feel that the dcree 
should mandate the release of all Windows Operating System Product 
APIs, including those related to security, for the purpose of not 
only building software to operate within a Windows Operating System 
Product but also for the purpose of developing middleware to allow 
other operating systems to run Windows software. This would be a 
clear step toward opening the market to competition.
    I also feel strongly about the fact that the Technical Committee 
mentioned in the consent decree would have little actual enforcement 
power. This leaves enforcement of the decree up to further 
litigation. Microsoft has, through its considerable resources, 
dragged even this trial on for a ridiculously long time. During the 
period of litigation, Microsoft integrated the Internet Explorer 
product further into the Windows operating system releasing Windows 
98, an act clearly disrespectful to both the plaintiffs and the 
judicial system. Windows Me, Windows 2000 and Windows XP have also 
been released and are installed on millions of computers. These are 
clear indicators that litigation is not fast enough to effectively 
stem Microsoft bad behavior. This in addition to the fact that 
Microsoft has enough money to continue litigation almost 
indefinitely.
    I am strongly against the currently proposed consent decree. I 
am particularly concerned that if this decree were to become 
binding, it would adversely effect future antitrust litigation 
against Microsoft. For more lucid and thorough analysis of the 
proposed decree, I direct your attention to the comments of Dan 
Kegel, available at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html. I fully 
support his comments and analysis.
    Thank you for reading my comment. I appreciate your time and 
attention.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremy Praissman



MTC-00027407

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
    Marilyn Riddle
    5669 State Route 29 E
    Sidney, OH 45365



MTC-00027408

From: Tony Sellers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the 
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust 
case. I oppose the proposed Microsoft Settlement. I hope to send a 
follow-up message in the morning detailing my opposition, but let 
this statement suffice for now: I fear for the private ownership, 
security, and confidence of data stored by or passed through 
Microsoft software due to Microsoft's use of proprietary and closed 
file formats, APIs, and network protocols, especially in light of 
their publicly expressed intentions to shift their software to a 
subscription sales model. Microsoft have been found guilty of abuse 
of their monopoly position in this case, and are being offered a 
pathetically weak settlement by the D.O.J. on behalf of the citizens 
of the U.S. and the world. Please abandon this settlement and play 
to win.
    It would be better to warn Microsoft to behave and put them on a 
sort of administrative probation than to settle so weakly. You have 
the power to make this settlement on my behalf, but you do not have 
my consent to do so.
    C. Anthony Sellers
    a private individual
    Miami, Florida



MTC-00027409

From:[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    On November 5, 2001 I sent the following letter to Thomas 
Reilly, Massachusetts Attorney General, stating that I supported him 
in his decision not to join the settlement.
    I am not, nor have I been, associated with the software industry 
per se, but I have used computers as an engineer and physicist for 
over 35 years. I have watched the industry develop and I'm pretty 
well acquainted with the fortunes of the companies involved. I do 
not have a financial interest in any software company, although I 
did own some Apple stock for a few years.
    I stand by the comments in my letter, with one exception: I have 
been in communication with Starbucks, and they have now added the 
ability to use credit cards on starbucks.com. I believe this is due, 
at least in part, to comments by people like myself. It should be 
noted, however, that using Passport is much more convenient, and 
that is the way it usually goes.
    As an aside, and with reference to the Enron debacle, I would 
surely like to see all contributions by corporations to government 
officials cease. I note that Microsoft is now making heavy 
contributions.
    Further, the Microsoft proposal to put computers and software 
into schools as part of a settlement was laughable to those in the 
know, because that is exactly how you extend the monopoly to the 
detriment of the competition. As a Republican I voted for President 
Bush, and I continue to support him vigorously. However, I cannot 
agree with the administration's policy on the settlement of this 
case. I would like to see Microsoft's business practices curtailed 
before more damage is done.
    Sincerely,
    Kurt B. Kaiser
    8 Bayview Road
    Ipswich, MA 01938
    978 356 5220
Letter

[[Page 28012]]

To
Massachusetts Attorney General
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108-1698
Dear Attorney General Reilly:
    I am pleased that you have decided to proceed with your action 
against Microsoft. Although the Appeals Court unanimously determined 
that Microsoft's actions were monopolistic, the settlement does not 
provide any remedy which would correct the situation or prevent its 
further extension in the future. Part of the justification for the 
settlement appears to be along the lines of, ``What is good for 
Microsoft is good for the country.''
    There are precious few vendors now which provide applications 
for PCs. Adobe and Intuit come to mind. The rest have been crushed 
(Netscape) or bought out by Microsoft (Visio). Real Player, I 
understand, will no longer work with Windows XP as Microsoft extends 
its domination into the multimedia applications. MS has a long 
history of this kind of abuse, going back to the days of DOS when 
incompatibilities were deliberately introduced to defeat DR DOS.
    Microsoft does not have a superior product, just the dominant 
one. Bill Gates has singlehandedly destroyed more creativity than 
any person in history. There is a theory that if MS was stopped, the 
consumer would suffer. I don't believe that to be the case. There 
would be a relatively short period of stagnation, during which the 
current OS and applications would be used, followed by a great 
outpouring of superior products. Right now, few want to try to 
compete, the risk is too great.
    I notice that the New York Times is now offering an online 
edition which is exactly the same as the print edition. To view it, 
you must have Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Internet Explorer. If 
the consumer wants to use his Macintosh, or Netscape, or Linux with 
Netscape, well, he's just out of luck. It doesn't make sense 
economically for the NYT to develop compatibility with those OS and 
applications because of the dominance of Microsoft. Why are they 
incompatible? Because of Microsoft's policy of ``embrace, 
extend, and extinguish.'' Microsoft has introduced 
incompatibilities (e.g. ActiveX) which make sure that competition is 
shut out.
    If you want to buy coffee on starbucks.com, you have to use 
Microsoft Passport. No credit cards or PayPal are accepted. I expect 
to see many more sites like that. Apparently a major reason 
Starbucks chose MS Passport was that MS claimed it was much safer to 
have a central repository than to have the consumer store credit 
card numbers on his own machine. As you may have heard, Wired 
recently had an article about a programmer who defeated Passport 
Wallet in less than an hour, and that MS had to shut down Passport 
to make ``corrections.'' I personally don't want my credit 
card numbers in the hands of MS because I believe they are not 
competent to safeguard them. I resent the lack of choice that is 
developing.
    These situations could not have occurred if Microsoft had not 
been allowed by the government to establish the most pervasive 
monopoly the world has known.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00027410

From: Joseph R. Justice
To: Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inet
gw
Date: 1/27/02 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Whom It May Concern:
    My name is Joseph R. Justice. I live in Alexandria, VA. I am a 
computer programmer and software developer; currently I am an 
independent programmer, but in the recent past I worked for several 
business units of the Thomson Corporation including West Group and 
Research Institute of America. (This message should be taken solely 
as a reflection of my own personal views, and not as an indication 
of the views of any current or past employer.) I am writing to 
comment on the proposed final settlement between the United States 
Government and several states to their current antitrust lawsuit 
against Microsoft Corporation. (See the URL ``http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm''.)
    I believe that the proposed final settlement does not adequately 
punish Microsoft for its past anticompetitive and illegal behavior 
performed in the marketplace and against consumers, end-users, and 
competitors. I also believe that the proposed final settlement will 
not prevent Microsoft from continuing and increasing its illegal 
activities in the future. In fact, I believe that the proposed final 
settlement as is will only be seen by Microsoft as encouragement and 
a sanctioning by the government of its past and future illegal 
activity. Therefore, I believe the proposed final settlement in its 
current form should not be accepted, and that it should be 
substantially or even entirely redrawn.
    I further agree with and wish to co-sign the ``Open Letter 
to DOJ Re: Microsoft Settlement'' by Dan Kegel. (See the URL 
``http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html''.) To that end, 
this message is also being sent to the e-mail address 
``[email protected]'' as my request 
to be a co-signer of this letter.
    Thank you for your time. If you need to contact me concerning 
this letter, I can be reached at the e-mail address 
``[email protected]'', the street address 
of ``2727 Duke Street # 1407, Alexandria, VA 22314'', 
or the phone number 703-567-5057.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph R. Justice
    Joseph R. Justice jrj, (at) radix.net == (AOL IM) JosRJust == 
anon-24205, (at) anon.twwells.com ==
    (EFNet) IRC: jrj, jrjx, jrjxx
    http://www.radix.net/jrj ``
    CC:Joseph R. Justice



MTC-00027411

From: D S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:00am
    From my understanding of the case, the so called restrictions to 
the company Microsoft was only a coverup done by both microsoft and 
the government. The government needs to prove themselves by 
``making things right''. Microsoft on the other hand need 
to remain as ``monopoly'' and do the many evil things that 
they do as a multi-national company.
    The fact that remains abhorrent to me is that XP will be free of 
any significant restictions. This made the case rediculous in terms 
that it fails place restriction on the current company product. It 
also shows a flawed in judgement by the judge. For a law is useless 
unless it can and will place restictions on microsoft now and in the 
future. Digging up old dirt and sueing them will not prevent new 
ways to breaking the law. ``If approved, some analysts said the 
agreement could greatly benefit computer manufacturers, which would 
have the freedom to substitute non-Microsoft applications on 
Windows, including Web browsers, e-mail clients, media players and 
instant-messaging applications.''
    The above statement clearly shows lack of judgement. If the 
proposal is approved, the general public will not so earily accept 
software other than microsoft. People who are used to doing things 
the microsoft way will resist change, especially from companies they 
have never heard of.



MTC-00027412

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/27/02 11:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ramiro Prado
January 27, 2002
2286 S. Blue Island
 Chicago, IL 60608
 Education Student at University of Illinois at Chicago
    The Anti-trust case against Microsoft is not just a case against 
anti-competitive practices; this case involves the control and 
dissemination of knowledge. Like Gutenberg's printing press , the 
World Wide Web (WWW) is the present day access point for knowledge. 
No single company should have a monopoly on the interface to access 
the WWW or on the standards to create WWW content.
    The progress of the United States, as a technological power, is 
directly linked to the technical ability of its population. A 
monopoly on the WWW is a threat for the advancement and continued 
technological leadership position that the United States has 
enjoyed.
    The bundling of Windows and Internet Explorer has forced 
innovation to be dictated by a single company. It was the inherent 
openness of the WWW that spurred the new digital revolution, and the 
creation of new jobs for the U.S. economy. However, Internet 
Explorer's domination has stifled innovation on the WWW, because a 
single browser means strict adherence to a monolithic ideology of 
WWW content creation and delayed development of the second 
generation of the WWW.
    Microsoft's new .NET initiative is the final stage of control 
over the WWW. By creating proprietary standards Microsoft will also 
be in control of the content of the WWW. This new standardization 
will force all content on the web to be Microsoft approved. A single 
company with so much power over intellectual as well as commercial 
information has never been seen and should never be seen.

[[Page 28013]]

    In spite no sign that Microsoft will change its monopolistic 
ways. Microsoft's .NET initiative is the new threat to an open and 
beneficial information highway. A just decision must be made to 
protect the access and content of the WWW, without a commercial 
company dictating what future technologies may bring.



MTC-00027413

From: Brian Albers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I'm writing to express my deep and sincere displeasure with the 
terms of the final settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. I 
feel that the proposed conditions in no way restrict the company 
from repeating the actions that caused the problems in the first 
place; furthermore, the conditions include no significant penalty 
and enforcement in them, implying that there was no reason to pursue 
this case in the first place.
    If Microsoft is allowed to continue its monopolistic behavior 
without check, it will cause even more problems in the industry 
beyond those already well documented in the trial. Please reconsider 
the proposed conditions, which do more harm than good. Penalties and 
enforcement.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Albers
    San Jose, CA



MTC-00027414

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
 Suite 1200
Washington, DC
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I wish to oppose the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case. 
I do not feel the decision is in the public interest. In my 
experience with working with computers I have been annoyed by the 
virtual Microsoft monopoly in many areas and I feel the decision is 
both vague and I do not see how it can be enforced. I feel that once 
the publicity has faded, the situation will return to 
``start'' and Microsoft will go back to using illegal and 
non competitive means to take over the software industry. I believe 
that computer users must have a choice in their decisions about what 
products to use on their computers. I believe that the settlement 
must provide ways for competing non-Microsoft operating systems, 
applications, and software components to run properly with Microsoft 
products.
    I hope that you will take my protest into consideration.
    Sincerely yours,
    Marianne J. Huber
    4 E. 82nd St.
    New York, NY 10028



MTC-00027415

From: Andy Tripp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: January 27, 2002
From: Andy Tripp
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Attached is my comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement:
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: January 27, 2002
From: Andyn Tripp
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Introduction
    I wish to comment on the Microsoft Proposed Final Judgement[1] 
(PFJ) settlement as provided for under the Tunney Act[2].
    About Me
    My name is Andy Tripp and I am a software developer in the 
Telecommunications Industry. I've been developing, testing, and 
supporting software in the industry for 17 years. I have no 
attachment with either Microsoft or any of its competitors. While I 
use the Java programming language (which Microsoft has been hostile 
to), I would say that I am impacted by the Microsoft case in much 
the same way that most people in the software business are. While I 
am more openly critical of Microsoft than most, I would say I'm a 
fairly typical software professional. Having worked for AT&T and 
its offspring for 15 years, I also know a little more about 
monopolies and divestiture than most. Being a member of the 
``Slashdot crowd'' (a technical news site), I also tend to 
follow Microsoft and it's legal cases more closely than most.
    About This Document
    This document has three parts. In Part 1, I highlight some of 
the reasons why the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) does not serve 
the public interest by noting where it falls short and by pointing 
out potential loopholes.
    Because most of the problems of the proposed settlement have 
already been pointed out by others, I rely heavily on quotes from 
others here.
    In Part 2, I explain why I think that nothing short of splitting 
Microsoft into three companies will restore competition to the OS 
and Web Browser markets. While a forced divestiture may seem 
extreme, I'll try to make the case that it's the only way to restore 
competition.
    In Part 3, I ask for a heavy fine against Microsoft as a 
deterrent to future illegal conduct. I suggest some starting numbers 
for calculating what would be an appropriate fine, emphasizing that 
the fine must be large enough to be an effective deterrent.
    Here is the outline of this document:
Introduction
    About Me
    About this document
Part 1: Problems With The Proposed Final Judgement
    API Disclosure
    OEM Provisions
    Desktop Icons
    Technical Committee
    Conclusion: The many loopholes in the PFJ Need to Be Closed
Part 2: Microsoft Should Be Split into 3 Companies
    Justification for a Split
    Why Internet Explorer Should be A Separate Company
    Why Windows Should be A Separate Company
    How to Determine ``Operating System'' vs. 
``Application''
    How to Enforce Separation: A Technical Committee
    How a Microsoft Split Would Restore Competition
    Conclusion: Splitting Microsoft is the Only Way to Restore 
Competition
Part 3: Deterence: Levy a Heavy Fine
    Final Thoughts
    References
Problems With The Proposed Final Judgement
    API Disclosure
    There are certainly many loopholes in the area of API 
disclosure. Zimran Ahmed [3] points out these problems, among other 
things:
    The fact that the definition of ``middleware'' 
excludes ``outside the context of general Web browsing'' 
doesn't make much sense. And the phrase ``that designated Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a reasonable 
technical requirement...'' gives Microsoft an easy 
``out'' to determine for itself what's 
``middleware'' and what's not.
    The definition of ``Communications Protocol'' is too 
narrow and seems to exclude SAMBA [4].
    Microsoft would not have to disclose any API related to 
security. It would be easy to label just about anything 
``security-related''.
    Microsoft would not have to disclose any API to any group that 
meets ``reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business.'' That would exclude open source as well as 
government, educational institutions, standards bodies, etc.
    There is no reason to exclude these groups.
    Another major problem with the API disclosure is that it forces 
those who use the APIs to share their finished code with Microsoft. 
There is no reason to force companies to expose anything to 
Microsoft.
    OEM Provisions
    The PFJ's treatment of Microsoft's relations with OEMs has a 
fatal flaw: Even if Microsoft is prohibitted from relatiation, it 
would be corporate suicide for an OEM to cross Microsoft. To quote 
the Computer and Communications Industry Association[5]:
    ...even its limited provisions (API disclosure, icon removal, 
etc.) rely exclusively on OEMs to provide a competitive alternative 
to Windows...there is no likelihood that any OEM will use its small 
freedoms under the settlement to choose to compete with Microsoft.

[[Page 28014]]

    This trial has shown that OEMs have been bollyed by Microsoft so 
badly that they have good reason to fear retaliation if they step 
out of line.
    Former Netscape CEO James Barksdale describes the Microsoft/OEM 
relationship ``Finlandization''[6]:
    During the Cold War, we used to refer to a concept known as 
Finlandization. What this referred to was that Finland was nominally 
free of the Soviet Union, but was so threatened by it, it could not 
act unilaterally without tempering its actions so as not to offend 
its giant neighbor which could crush it at will. The technology 
industry now, and after the settlement with DOJ, is still 
effectively, Finlandized by Microsoft. It is still dominated, and 
will still cower in fear of the monopolist unbound.
    Desktop Icons
    The PFJ ensures that non-Microsoft companies may get their icons 
on the Windows desktop, but the clause only applies to companies who 
have sold more than a million copies of their software in the United 
States.
    There does not need to be any such limitation. Hardware vendors, 
service providers, and all kinds of non-software companies might 
want to pay OEMs to put their icon on the desktop.
    Technical Comittee
    The three-person technical committee (TC) that the PFJ proposes 
has some serious problems. First, the fact that Microsoft would be 
allowed to choose one member, who would in turn help to choose a 
second, is troubling. No convicted criminal gets to choose his 
guards, his judge, his jury, or even his parol officer, and Iraq 
does not get to choose its weapons inspectors. Microsoft would 
surely choose someone who is biased in favor of the company.
    As the TC would work in secret, so there would be no public 
pressure on Microsoft to simply ignore them.
    The TC would have no specific enforcement power. All they could 
do is report back to the DoJ on what's happening inside Microsoft.
    The TC members would be payed by Microsoft. That creates a 
conflict of interest. Conclusion: The many loopholes in the PFJ Need 
to Be Closed
    The PFJ has been widely critisized [7,8] and software industry 
is virtually unanimous in it's characterization of the PFJ as being 
full of loopholes and ineffective. The more generous critiques call 
it a ``slap on the wrist''. I believe the most common view 
of it was put simply by Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, 
when he said[9] that the deal was ``full of loopholes and does 
little more than license Microsoft to crush its competition.''
    Part 2: Microsoft Should Be Split Into Three Companies
    In this section, I will explain why I think that the PFJ is not 
sufficient to stop the unlawful conduct of Microsoft and restore 
competition to the OS and Web Browser markets. I propose splitting 
Microsoft into an Operating Systems (OS) company, a Web Browser 
company, and an Applictions (and everything else) company.
    Justification for a Microsoft Breakup
    While most of the remedies in the PFJ attempt to 
``terminate unlawful conduct'' and ``prevent 
repetition in the future'', none even come close to attempting 
to ``revive competition in the relevant markets''. In his 
legal summary of the Microsoft case[7], Paul M. Kaplan states:
    Finally, the Court highlighted its major concerns with its entry 
of the Final Judgment--namely, ``to terminate the unlawful 
conduct, to prevent its repetition in the future, and to revive 
competition in the relevant markets''. Supra at 3. United 
States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation, 391 U.S. 244 (1968) 
provides guidance as to the judicial relief that should be granted 
where a defendant is found guilty of violating 2 of the Sherman Act. 
In that case, the Court stated that the appropriate relief in a 
``Sherman Act case should be to put an end to the combination 
and deprive the defendants of any of the benefits of the illegal 
conduct, and break-up or render impotent this monopoly power found 
to be in violation of the act. In short, the remedy should achieve 
its principal objects, ``to extirpate practices that have 
caused or may hereafter cause monopolization and restore workable 
competition in the market'.'' Supra at 252 The remedy must be 
strong enough that in the future, people look back and say 
``there is now competition in both the PC Operating Systems 
market and the Web Browser market because of the Microsoft 
trial.''
    The CCIA[5] also points out that the settlement does not address 
the core monopoly problem:
    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 DOJ settlement has no provisions to create competition in 
the OS market that Microsoft unlawfully monopolized.
    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 deal does 
not even try to restrict ways in which Microsoft could (and already 
has) leverage its Windows monopoly in the future.
    In fact, as the CCIA mentions above, Microsoft is continuing its 
illegal practice. Today, Microsoft not only enjoys an OS monopoly, 
it now enjoys a Web Browser monopoly and an ``Office 
Applications'' monopoly. It is using the same tactics that it's 
been conviced of to extend its OS monopoly to a ``Media 
Player'' monopoly and ``Instant Messanger'' monopoly. 
Microsoft claims[10] that many of these ``applications'' 
are or should be integral parts of the operating system. But in 
fact, viable markets already exist for these applications. The Web 
Browser market was once very profitable for Netscape. Many non-
Microsoft ``Office Applications'' have done fine in the 
past, and certainly there are many ``Media Player'' and 
``Instant Messager'' providers today.
    Why Internet Explorer Should be A Separate Company
    In my opinion, there is simply no way to restore competition to 
the Web Browser market other than to separate the IE application 
from the rest of Microsoft. Anything short of that would allow 
Microsoft to fund IE development from it's monopoly-generated funds. 
If IE were forced to be self-sufficient, it would help to level 
playing field with other web browsers--both existing and 
potential new ones. Microsoft would argue that Netscape is funded by 
AOL, and thus would have an unfair advantage. This is true, but some 
advantage is now needed to restore competition now that IE has 
around 85% market share. By analogy, AT&T had far more 
restrictions place on it after its divestiture than its competitors. 
This was necessary to attempt to create competition. It's true that 
all else being equal, it would be unfair to only restrict Microsoft. 
But all else is not equal: Microsoft has been convicted of illegally 
maintaining and extending its OS monopoly to the browser market.
    Microsoft would also argue that the consumer would be harmed 
because IE today is free. IE in fact is not free.
    Consumers are simply paying for it as part of the price of 
Windows.
    The separation of IE from the rest of Microsoft would be 
necessary but not sufficient to re-establish competition in the web 
browser market. There would need to be the regulations you might 
expect to ensure that it's really separate: No cross-ownership, no 
special agreements, no comingling of code, etc. between these two 
companies. And just as local phone companies could not enter the 
long distance market until they had competition in their local 
market, The IE company would need to be restricted from the OS 
market, and the OS company from the browser market, until 
competition existed.
    The CCIA and SIIA organizations filed a ``friend of the 
court'' brief[12] in which they forcefully argue the need for 
not just the OS be split from the rest of Microsoft, but for the Web 
Browser part of Microsoft to be separated also. Judge Jackson seemed 
to feel that this was the best solution, but as it was not the one 
recommended by the prosecution, it would have been inappropriate to 
impose it. But two things have changed since then. First, the 
effects of Microsoft's illegal activity continues to give IE 
increased market share and erode the competition in the Web Browser 
market. With over 85% of browser market share, Microsoft now has (or 
is close to having) a monopoly on the browser market, which it 
didn't have just two years ago. Second, the DoJ, under a new 
administration, has not only dropped it's efforts for a structural 
remedy, it has agreed to this very weak PFJ. To some extent, the DoJ 
has ``switched sides'', now siding with Microsoft on a 
weak remedy. While there was little reason to second-guess the 2-way 
split supported by the previous DoJ prosecutors, there seems to

[[Page 28015]]

be plenty of reason to question whether the current DoJ is doing 
what's in the public interest.
    As you might guess, others[13,14] have also recommended this 3-
way split.
    Why Windows Should be A Separate Company
    Separating IE from the rest of Microsoft would attempt to remove 
the illegally established monopoly in web browsers, but there still 
is the issue of Microsoft continuing to extend its OS market to 
other markets, such as Media Players, Instant Messaging, Virus 
software, etc. The court found that Microsoft attempted to maintain 
its monopoly through restrictive OEM contracts, and illegally extend 
it through web browser tying. But, of course, it did not find 
Microsoft illegally extend their OS product to these other areas, as 
Microsoft only started to bundle these recently. But the principle 
is the same: to tie an application that is in a competitive market 
into the monopoly OS. The remedy must take steps to stop this 
activity. By analogy, when someone is convicted of stealing from a 
bank, the remedy should also prevent or discourage him from stealing 
from anywhere else. In fact, the remedy should discourage him from 
breaking any law even remotely related to the original crime.
    So how to prevent Microsoft from its ongoing practice of taking 
over markets by extending Windows to include them? The only way to 
do this is separate the OS into its own company. This remedy has 
wide acceptance as the most effective solution, including several 
thorough briefs[11] supplied to the court. I believe this remedy is 
the only way to prevent Microsoft from continuing to illegally 
maintain and extends its OS monopoly. A large fine may discourage 
it, but only a structural remedy would prevent it.
    The Windows product must be split into a completely separate 
company from all other products in order to stop it from growing by 
consuming other application areas, and thus illegally extending its 
monopoly. The company would need to have the obvious restrictions: 
No cross-ownership, no special deals with other companies, and no 
extension into other markets. In addition, as was the case for 
.AT&T, it would need to be profit-regulated to ensure that it 
does not overcharge customers.
    How to Determine ``Operating System'' vs. 
``Application''
    The difficult part of enforcing such a split would be on the 
technical issue of not allowing the OS to grow into 
``application'' areas. Bill Gates, in his disposition[10], 
lists many ``gray areas'' which are not considered part of 
the dictionary-definition of ``Operating System'', but 
which recently have tended to be delivered as part of the operating 
system:
Font management
Disk backup, optimization, compression
A shell (DOS/Unix command line)
A help system
Anti-virus software
Remote boot capability
Graphics support
A control panel
u email capability
demos to show off OS features.
    This is just a rough list off the top of his head; there are 
probably hundreds of such areas that some might consider ``part 
of the OS'', and others would consider 
``applications''. In this deposition, the DoJ presented 
dictionary definitions of ``Operating System'' and 
``application'', and then noted that the web browser was 
always referred to, even by Microsoft, as an 
``application''. But Microsoft has a valid point here: 
many features are delivered with the OS these days, and the consumer 
does benefit from their inclusion.
    How do we determine whether these and other ``pre-packaged 
applications'' may be included in the OS or not?
    My proposal is to ask a simple question:
    Has there been, is there, or could there be, a viable market for 
the feature as an application that's separate from the OS ?
    Certainly, there are many email applications for sale out there. 
There is healthy competition in the anti-virus software market. 
There are businesses who's products are disk management. And there 
are alternative ``shell'' products such as MKS Toolkit. 
Microsoft could argue that the Operating System would be better if 
these where included, but that's not the point. The point is that 
they did (or do, or might someday) also exist as 
``applications'' within a viable market where competition 
exists.
    Another analogy: Certainly a car would be ``better'' 
if it included any number of built-in features: a car stereo, a map, 
a compass, a thermostat, etc. And in a competitive market, no one 
would restrict a car company from including such features. But if 
one car company had a monopoly, inclusion of more and more of these 
features would destroy the existing markets for these products and 
would be illegal under the Sherman Act. Only features which are 
absolutely critical for the car to function (such as tires and an 
engine) should be allowed to be packaged by the convicted 
monopolist.
    How to Enforce Separation: A Technical Committee
    If we had a separate Microsoft OS company, it would need to be 
restricted from entering any area where a viable market already 
exists. Further, we would need an enforcement mechanism by which 
this company would be forced to remove or usable any feature that 
has a viable market outside of the OS.
    Certainly there are vibrant disk management and anti-virus 
markets today, and Norton (the leading non-Microsoft player in this 
market) and others should get the benefit of having these features 
unbundled. In addition to an existing market being criterion for 
unbundling, a past market should be grounds also. So Opera or 
Netscape/AOL should not have to prove that the browser market is 
still competative, just the fact that Netscape dominated a non-OS 
web browsing market in the past should be justification for 
unbundling it from the OS.
    More recently, certainly AOL dominates an ``instant 
messaging'' market and Real Networks is in a viable 
``media player'' market. On the other hand, I don't know 
if there is a viable market for ``font management'' or 
``control panel'' or ``OS demo'' or 
``remote administration'' markets outside of the OS 
itself.
    The determination of whether a product is (or could be) a 
``viable application'' as opposed to only an ``OS 
feature'' should not be left to the traditional court process 
because it is too slow. In the fast-moving software industry, it's 
just not practical have a trial and take years to make such a 
determination. With Microsoft now bundling Media Player in Windows 
XP, for example, Real Networks could easily be long gone two or 
three years from now.
    I propose an independant panel or ``Special Master'' 
appointed by the court to determine whether a particular feature 
once had, does have, or could reasonable have, a viable market as an 
application. This panel would analyze the feature from an economic 
point of view, not a technical one. In this way, it would not be 
enough for Microsoft to simply claim ``It would be cool to 
browse your local disk using your web browser.'' or ``It 
would be convenient for the user to have a disk compression utility 
built in to the OS.'' Instead, Microsoft would be required to 
show that disk compression software (for example) is not a viable 
application, never was a viable application, and never could be a 
viable application outside of the OS itself. Non-Microsoft companies 
could petition the panel to have a feature considered to be an 
application, and if the committee agreed, it would have the power to 
force the Microsoft OS to unbundle it from the OS.
    Such a ``technical committee'' should differ from the 
TC proposed in the PFJ:
    It should be independent of Microsoft
    All it's activities should be public
    It should have enforcement powers
    Its members should be selected by the court
    How a Microsoft Breakup Would Restore Competition
    How would a three-way company split and a Technical Committee as 
outlined above stop the ongoing extension of Windows? First, the 
committee would certainly have one ruling already decided: there 
certainly was once a viable web-browser application market, and 
Microsoft should be immediatly forced to unbundle it.
    Companies such as AOL, Real Networks and Norton could 
immediately petition the TC to have instant messanging, media 
player, Virus and Disk management be declared viable markets, and 
Microsoft would be forced to unbundle these features from the OS. 
Over time, more an more features would be unbundled from Windows, 
until eventually all that would be left is what the dictionary says 
is an Operating System: just the ``kernel'' and basic 
device management. The Technical Committee's job would be to remove 
the ``Application Barrier to Entry'' for each type of 
application, one by one.
    This is the only way I can envision returning competition to 
what is today the almost all-encompassing area of an 
``Operating System''. The only other suggestion I have 
heard that even attempts to restore competition would be to split 
Microsoft into several ``Baby Bills''--smaller 
companies that all share the rights to Windows.
    I doubt that that would work. For starters, all employees could 
simply quit and all one

[[Page 28016]]

company-- perhaps on their first day, and perhaps all join the 
company led by Bill Gates. Conclusion: Breaking Up Microsoft is the 
Only Way to Restore Competition
    In conclusion, I do not take proposing a breakup of what's 
probably the worlds most successful company lightly. But I think the 
situation now parallels the situation with AT&T before 
divestiture. There was no real long-distance competition then, and 
there is no real operating system competition now or in the 
foreseeable future. While AT&T was prohibited then from entering 
new markets (like local service), Microsoft is not restricted from 
extending the OS into all sorts of other software markets. While 
there was a fairly clear distinction between long-distance and local 
phone service for AT&T, there is no such clear technical 
boundary between an operating system and an application. We can be 
sure that if left unchecked, Microsoft will continue to extend 
Windows into all sorts of other areas. In fact, all the Microsoft 
employees in all their testimony where careful never to rule out any 
software as potentially being part of the OS. The best we can do is 
basically to say ``If there was, is, or could be a market for 
it outside of the operating system, then we must eliminate the 
barrier to that market's existance: force its removal from the 
Windows operating system.'' Part 3: Deterence: Levy a Heavy 
Fine Aside from the structural remedy I propose here and the 
contract and API-related remedies proposed in the PFJ, I don't 
understand why there is no punishment proposal in the PFJ, such as a 
heavy fine. I do understand (at a high level--I Am Not a 
Lawyer) that this is a civil case in which the goal is to stop the 
behavior and the criminal cases (such as the class action suit filed 
by states and the recently filed suit by AOL/Netscape) are meant to 
provide relief for the victims (consumers in the one case and a 
company in the other). But it seems to me that the simplest, easiest 
to implement, and least controversial way to stop Microsoft from 
continued illegal activity would be to levy a heavy fine for its 
previous illegal activity. How large of a fine?
    Large enough that Microsoft executives would regret having done 
the illegal activities and would not do them in the future, simply 
on economic grounds. To this day, Microsoft executives say 
``We've done nothing wrong'', and that may never change. 
The court can't change that, but the court can levy a fine that will 
cause them so say ``...but we won't do it any more because it 
would be bad business.''
    Of course, calculating an appropriate fine would be very 
difficult, but here are some rough numbers to consider. Microsoft 
has several tens of billions of dollars in cash, and I believe 
roughly half is from the sale of Windows. Windows 95, 98, 2000, cost 
around $90, a little less when preloaded by an OEM. Microsoft's own 
trial testimony indicated that around $49 would have been a 
reasonable price for these products. (Microsoft enjoyed an 88% 
return on investment, compared to 13% for other industries). So 
multiplying a $40 ``overcharge'' by the number of copies 
of Windows 95, 98, and 2000 sold would give a ballpark figure of the 
amount of damages to consumers. Perhaps other versions of Windows 
(such as Windows XP) and their prices should be taken into account. 
Certainly, upgrade prices (as opposed to ``complete 
versions'') should also be considered.
    I believe it would take a fine in the tens of billions of 
dollars for Microsoft's past illegal activities to be considered as 
having been a bad business decision. Such a fine would not be enough 
to put Microsoft out of business, but enough to do serious damage 
comparable to that suffered by Netscape. Final Thoughts
    Thank you for reading this document. I think input from the 
public, and from people in the software industry in particular, 
should be given very serious consideration considering the huge 
impact this ruling will have on the industry. I believe the Tunney 
Act included this comment period for just such a situation as we 
have today: when the Department Of Justice, for whatever reason, 
wishes to settle an antitrust case in a way that does no serve the 
public interest, the public should be heard.
    References
    [1] Proposed Final Judgement
    [2] The Tunney Act
    [3] Zimran Ahmed, Letter to the DoJ, 12/10/01
    [4]SAMBA
    [5] Computer & Communcations Industry Association, ``US 
vs. Microsoft: A Trial Perspective''
    [6] James Barksdale Letter to Chariman Leahy and Senator Hatch
    [7] Epstein Becker & Green, The Unfolding Microsoft Drama: 
Shattered Windows:
    [8] On the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft
    [9] BBC News: Microsoft Settlement Search Continues
    [10] Deposition of Bill Gates, December 15th, 1998
    [11] United States vs. Microsoft Remedies Papers
    [12] BRIEF ON REMEDY OF AMICI CURIAE COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS 
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION AND SOFTWARE AND INFORMATION INDUSTRY 
ASSOCIATION
    [13] Is It Too Late To Split Microsoft In Three?
    [14] Microsoft Remedy Redux



MTC-00027416

From: James Austin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a concerned citizen, I wish to offer comment concerning the 
proposed settlement of United States v. Microsoft.
    I am a civilian employee of an agency of the United States 
Government, where my job function is the administration of a network 
of personal computers and the technical support of the users of 
those computers. However, I offer the following comments purely as a 
private citizen, without the encouragement or even the knowledge of 
my employer.
    I have been an interested observer of the computer industry in 
various capacities for more than twenty years, and have been 
professionally involved in the industry for ten. In that time I have 
seen the development of the industry from a perspective rather 
different from that usually discussed. My experience is that of 
someone who has directly used the technology and helped others to 
use the technology, working alongside both the users of that 
technology and others whose professional duties were similar to my 
own. These experiences have taught me several things which I am 
compelled to share.
    First: The case of United States v. Microsoft is almost 
certainly one of the most important cases of all time, for how this 
is resolved will have repercussions certain to outlive anyone of 
this generation now participating in the actual case.
    What is at stake is not merely the future practices of one 
corporation, or even the future structure of one industry. What is 
at stake is nothing less than the nature of access to information, 
from the individual citizen to the largest private and public 
institutions.
    Many years ago, I heard of a Jesuit philosopher who had written 
about an idea he called the ``knowlosphere.'' He imagined 
that as more and more information was transmitted via computer 
technology, there would arise around the earth a sort of 
``sphere of knowledge'' that would surround the earth the 
same way the atmosphere does, and that there would come a point in 
which the essential sum total of all human knowledge would exist 
within this sphere. Furthermore, this would eventually become so 
important to the lives of people that it would become impossible to 
switch off once switched on. Though he imagined this in terms of 
communications satellites (the highest technology available to him 
at the time), I maintain that a world of personal computers all 
connected via the worldwide Internet is the true realization of this 
vision.
    We must now ask ourselves this question: do we wish to allow, 
indeed do we dare allow, the fundamental infrastructure of human 
knowledge and thought to become in practice (if not directly in law) 
the private commercial domain of one corporation?
    Second: Microsoft already monopolizes several areas of computer 
technology, and is working hard to monopolize others.
    This point seems hardly worth discussing, because as I write 
this, the courts have repeatedly ruled that Microsoft is indeed a 
monopoly and is guilty of breaking the law. What is more interesting 
is that to this very day, I am unaware of any admission Microsoft 
has ever offered, to anyone at any time, that it has been found 
guilty of breaking any law. Indeed, only within the last few months 
has it acknowledged in any public statements that any court rulings 
went against it, and vaguely at that.
    Third: Microsoft has proven repeatedly that it cannot be trusted 
even with the level of power it enjoys today.
    Microsoft portrays all concern over its power and actions as 
solely the product of disgruntled competitors. While even that would 
justify intervention if the competitors were disgruntled because of 
actions which broke the law (as the courts have repeatedly ruled was 
in fact the case), what is more significant is Microsoft's actions 
not against

[[Page 28017]]

its competition but against its own customers.
    Consider that under the First Amendment, I have the legal right 
to criticize my government, perhaps even harshly so, and I may even 
do so in a forum sponsored by that same government. The courts have 
interpreted this right to extend further; for instance, I may use a 
telephone and still criticize whatever company provides my telephone 
service. But I may NOT utilize Microsoft products to criticize 
Microsoft. This is not a paranoid fantasy, it is a direct reading of 
clauses in the licenses of several of their products, which 
explicitly forbid one to ``criticize or disparage Microsoft 
and/or its products and/or services.'' Indeed one license 
actually forbids the ``parody'' of Microsoft products and 
services.
    Microsoft demands that companies engaged in any joint ventures 
waive their rights to sue Microsoft for patent infringement 
``even should evidence arise that such infringement has 
occurred.'' And there are more additional examples than I have 
time to list, of Microsoft using the courts to squelch criticism and 
then thumbing its nose at the courts when they issue rulings 
Microsoft does not wish.
    We must now ask ourselves whether the interest of the people of 
the United States is served when one company not only has the power 
to behave in this manner, but actually does so, and thus far with 
impunity. Fourth: Microsoft's already dangerous power is increasing. 
It has been widely noted that when the Internet first began to 
become a household word, Microsoft largely ignored the whole 
phenomenon. Now that Microsoft has taken notice, their objective is 
nothing less than the total control of the Internet. During the time 
between the filing of United States v. Microsoft and today, 
Microsoft's plans to destroy Netscape (publishers of what was at the 
time overwhelmingly the most widely-used browser for the World Wide 
Web) have come to fruition, and they now face essentially no 
competition in that area.
    One has to ask why Microsoft wanted to destroy Netscape so badly 
that they would give away a competing product for free. One reason 
is that control of the web browser gives one control of the choke 
point for information and commerce on the Internet. The other reason 
is that Netscape had ambitious plans to enhance their browser and 
ultimately to ``grow the browser into an operating system of 
its own'' which would have threatened Microsoft's monopoly. 
Perhaps such a scheme would have proved beneficial to the public, 
but it was a threat to Microsoft, and like all such threats before, 
could not resist Microsoft's destructive power.
    Today Microsoft controls the web browser, and much evidence 
exists that its ultimate plan is to take control of the basic 
protocols that servers use to communicate with each other across the 
Internet itself. Once that happens they will essentially have the 
level of power that a company would have if they controlled all bank 
ATM machines, all telephones, all newspapers, and all radio and 
television stations. All access to information in any form from 
anywhere at any time would generate profit for Microsoft, and be 
subject to their approval.
    We must now ask whether this is a desirable future for a free 
people. Fifth: People like me, in the trenches, have long considered 
Microsoft dangerous.
    I could tell you so many stories. Just the jokes we tell to each 
other betray a deepening gloom about the future. Alas, I am facing a 
strict deadline for public comment and this must leave them for 
another time.
    Sixth: The proposed settlement of United States v. Microsoft is 
NOT sufficient. It contains insufficient punishment for past 
transgressions of the law, insufficient guarantees against future 
transgressions of law, NO compensation for victims of those 
transgressions of law, and insufficient remedies for the 
consequences of past transgressions of law. Much more needs to be 
said, but as the period for public comment is ending I must draw to 
a close. But I cannot urge strongly enough that this settlement NOT 
be accepted as is.
    Sincerely,
    James R. Austin
    (Should this be required by law, my full address is as follows:
    155 Watkins Mill RD
    Apt. C
    Gaithersburg, MD 20879-3336)



MTC-00027417

From: Dennis Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:07am
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
    I use Microsoft products, and I benefit from them and their 
features. Microsoft did NOT force me to buy and use their products. 
I chose them because they are superior to anything offered by their 
competitors. I resent the government's characterization of me as a 
helpless victim who cannot choose software that is useful to me. I 
do not think that the government has any right to decide what can be 
in my computer. I resent the idea that a successful business and its 
products are a threat to anyone. I would like to remind the court 
that the complaint against Microsoft originated NOT with individual 
consumers, or with Microsoft's partners, but with Microsoft's 
unsuccessful, jealous competitors. Failed businesses must not be 
allowed to set the rules for the markets in which they failed. I 
would also like to remind the court that for politicians to protect 
some businesses from competition by others is a dangerous policy. 
Continued application of the antitrust laws against successful 
businessmen can only lead to corruption and economic disaster as 
exists in many other countries. I want to see an America where 
success is not throttled, but embraced. I want a free America where 
anyone with enough intelligence and hard work can be a self-made man 
like Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates. Microsoft has a fundamental 
right to its property. It is the government's job is to PROTECT this 
right, not to take it away.
    Best regards,
    Dennis Wilson
    [email protected]
    ``Intellectual honesty [involves] knowing what one does 
know, constantly expanding one's knowledge, and NEVER evading or 
failing to correct a contradiction. This means: the development of 
an ACTIVE mind as a permanent attribute.''
    Ayn Rand



MTC-00027418

From: Kory Hamzeh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please give serious consideration to the contents of: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Sincerely,
    Kory Hamzeh
    West Hills, CA



MTC-00027419

From: The Dream Factory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
    As I understand it, MS1 settlement offer would have them giving 
away hardware/software to public institutions (school etc.) Now, 
that1s the core sector of their direct competitor (Apple). I fear 
the Mr. Gate1s business acumen sees in this an opportunity to give 
away ``samples'' of his products to a new generation of 
buyers, which would only lead into making Microsoft stronger and 
bigger.
    Thank you for your time.
    JF Leduc,
    Montreal Canada



MTC-00027420

From: Jeff Prus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:12am
Subject: Accept the Current Microsoft Case Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
    I would like my opinion to be considered for the Microsoft case. 
I believe the current settlement is fair and urge you to settle this 
case now. I believe continuation of this litigation is harmful to 
both the software industry and the economy.
    By continuing to add features and functionality to Windows, 
Microsoft has advanced the PC platform while reducing the costs to 
the consumer. Furthermore, I believe that Microsoft's ability to add 
features to the operating system only creates parity with other 
firms that also incorporate new functionality within the operating 
system itself, namely Apple's OS X and various versions of Linux. I 
believe the states that continue to oppose the settlement are only 
trying to achieve a settlement windfall for Microsoft competitors 
within their states, however, at a significant cost to the high-tech 
industry and overall economy.
    That being said, I do believe that Microsoft's dominance in the 
desktop PC operating system market creates a disadvantage for 
competitors and thus warrants some restrictions in order for other 
companies to be given a chance to compete.

[[Page 28018]]

These include the requirement for Microsoft to include some other 
companies'' products within Windows as an alternative to 
Microsoft products. This requirement is covered within the existing 
settlement. This continued litigation is damaging one of our 
countries great corporations and I believe a fair and equitable 
settlement has been proposed. As such, I urge you to settle this 
case now. The only winner in this continued litigation is the legal 
profession.
    Thanks,
    Jeff Prus
    [email protected]
    (773) 525-1969



MTC-00027421

From: Mary E. Daudelin
To: Microsoft ATR,Mary E. Daudelin
Date: 1/28/02 12:11am
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Comments included in body of email, in case you don't have MS 
Office 2000 to read the attachment of my earlier e-mail.
    Sincerely,
    M. E. Daudelin
    January 27, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    To paraphrase Mr. Glassman's comments pertaining to the 
Microsoft settlement, I also feel that AOL could better spend its 
time in further analysis of its own product (especially with regard 
to its deployment overseas) rather than in continuing to pursue this 
case. My own personal experience with AOL has led me to believe that 
full utilization of the Internet is, in fact, restricted, when using 
their application. As a developer of WEB applications for research, 
business and educational purposes, I have utilized a variety of 
browsers, development tools and operating systems while producing 
and testing my applications. Although I use Windows NT servers and 
take advantage of their many development tools, such as FrontPage 
2002, I have not found that the public cannot access my 
applications, regardless of their operating system and/or browser 
types (with the exception of an occasional prototype). In fact, 
until recently, Netscape has always been my personal choice of 
browser as it was the one that introduced me fully to the Internet. 
And SUN's StarOffice product has produced many graduate-school 
presentations for me.
    Because Internet Explorer is so forgiving of my JavaScript 
scripting errors, I find that I often HAVE to make myself utilize 
other browsers/systems in my testing to ensure that users who do not 
use MS products/systems are not inundated with JavaScript errors 
that I have overlooked in my own code. My personal belief is that 
Microsoft has some very good programmers that pay attention to 
detail, and, as such, should not be penalized for their technical 
excellence.
    Yes, my job would be much easier if I could convince everyone on 
this planet to use Microsoft Windows OS's and IE browsers, IBM 
ThinkPad laptop computers, the same size/resolution monitor and to 
access the Internet via cable or high-speed access, however, since 
this attitude smacks of the old telecom mentality (a black rotary 
phone for everyone, by God!), and because we all have our different 
comfort levels, I will remain silent on that subject and continue to 
jump back and forth between the plethora of computers/systems/
browsers that I access in my testing.
    In closing, I feel that Microsoft should be used as an example 
of what works in our economy (little, if any, debt and innovative, 
easily accessible business solutions at a reasonable cost). Beyond 
the concessions contained in the settlement agreement, nothing more 
should be expected or required of Microsoft at this time. I 
appreciate your efforts to quickly settle this case.
    Sincerely,
    M. E. Daudelin
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary E. Daudelin
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 12:06 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Comments on the MS Case:
    See attachment.
    Sincerely,
    M. E. Daudelin



MTC-00027422

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:10am
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,
    Ella B Lankford
    P. O. Box 266
    Seneca, MO 64865-0266



MTC-00027423

From: Rick Kennell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
    I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement of the United 
States vs. Microsoft antitrust case. I am a computer engineer with 
several years of experience in industry as well as a university 
instructor. I look forward to a future where I can work in my chosen 
career of software engineering although, in light of the proposed 
settlement, this future is fading. I am opposed to the proposed 
settlement because it does not go far enough to remedy the damaging 
market structure set up by Microsoft that almost completely 
squelches other software environments as well as their developers. I 
find that the terms of the proposed settlement will do nothing more 
than prolong the status quo. In particular, I find the fact that the 
settlement would allow Microsoft to continue its damaging 
anticompetitive practices of economically barring OEMs from shipping 
computers without Microsoft's OS to be the greatest problem. A 
correction of this element alone-- simply to restore a free-
market economy to the PC industry--would be a welcome relief to 
the industry.
    I appreciate the sentiment that a settlement should be reached 
quickly in order to avoid wasting taxpayer money. I would only hope 
that if money is to be spent for this at all, that the job should be 
completed in such a manner as to make it worth the effort of 
starting the process in the first place. The settlement, as it 
stands, DOES NO GOOD.
    Sincerely,
    Richard L. Kennell
    Visiting Instructor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
    Purdue University
    West Lafayette, IN



MTC-00027424

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:17am
Subject: microsoft settlement January 27, 2002 Attorney General John 
Ashcroft US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20530 Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    A settlement to the antitrust suit against Microsoft has finally 
been reached, and I hope that it is implemented as soon as the 
public comment period is over with. This proposed settlement stands 
to benefit everyone involved, and best of all, allows Microsoft to 
get back to helping the economy instead of wasting valuable time and 
money in court.
    The economy started its downward spiral the day the suit against 
Microsoft was announced, and three years later we find ourselves in 
a recession. Did no one realize just how important Microsoft is to 
the economy? They provided tens of thousands of jobs to Americans 
across the country and to people around the globe. I hope this 
settlement will pave the way for the economy to get back on its 
feet, and with Microsoft agreeing to work more closely with its 
competitors, the market has to improve. I know there are many who 
worry weather Microsoft will adhere to the terms of the settlement, 
but they have no choice. An oversight committee has been set up that 
will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement.
    Everything needed to improve our economy is in place. The 
settlement must now be approved in order to get the ball rolling. 
cc; Representative Maxine Waters
    Sincerely,
    Mose Tyler



MTC-00027425

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w

[[Page 28019]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:18am
Subject: Microsoft vs Netscape Opinions Dear the Department of 
Justice:
    Hello, I am from California, and am in the eight grade, and I 
have a few issues to discuss about the way Microsoft is handling 
this current case. Right now, Microsoft has made many illegal moves 
that are all punishable because they are against certain laws set 
forth in the late 1800's and early 1900's. For example, the Sherman 
Anti- trust act started a movement to protect the smaller companies. 
Microsoft has disobeyed, and they monpolized, and are taking 
advantage of Netscape, which is backed by and even bigger company, 
AOL Time Warner. The first trial that Microsoft was tried on was 
very similar to this one. Netscape is sueing, because Microsoft 
Internet Exploer covers 90% of the Internet Market Share, and the 
government wants to give an equal perentage of the Internet Market 
Share to smaller companies like Netscape and AOL. Microsoft is also 
tried for bundling software in PC'S, which is also illegal. 
Microsoft should also pay heavy fines for violating anti-trust laws. 
Therefore, Microsoft rightfully should get this punishment that will 
come, because it does not give smaller companies a chance.
    From:
    David Yao



MTC-00027426

From: Delbert Hart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:19am
Subject: Tunney Act comment
    I have been active in the computer field for over 10 years. I am 
currently an assistant professor in the computer science department 
at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. In brief I believe that 
the proposed settlement will not be effective in curbing the 
predatory practices used by Microsoft. The most significant 
deficiencies is the ambiguity in the wording, which may make 
enforcement difficult. I also have some concerns about the technical 
committee, especially the technical committee's inability to make 
public comments. It is reasonable for them not to be able to reveal 
intellectual property, but they should be able to speak about 
general issues related to Microsoft's compliance.
    I hope that revisions can be made to the settlement to clarify 
many points and to allow the public direct access to the technical 
committee. Although I have kept these comments short, I would be 
happy to provide more details about possible improvments. These are 
my own opinions and not necessarily those of my employer. --
    Del Hart Assistant Professor 
[email protected] University of Alabama in 
Huntsville



MTC-00027427

From: Doug Rothert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To whom it may concern,
    I really intended to make this a longer, more thought out 
letter, but as the time draws to a close to express my concerns you 
will get the brief version:
    (1) I don't think the existing settlement will restore 
competition, and I believe it is too little too late. In fact its 
hard to imagine competition returning to my field (Software 
Engineering) within the next 5 years or so. I won't dare make a 
guess of anything beyond that. But the offer on the table is wrong 
and is a defeat for the consumer, the tax payer, and our nation as a 
whole. A chilling fact: in some colleges they have ceased teaching 
fundamental computer science classes such as compilers and operating 
system in favor of essentially training sessions for integrating 
things with Microsoft software. Their point being, which are you 
most likely to use on your job? Only one large company works on 
compilers or operating systems now . . .
    (2) If in fact you do go forward with this proposal and you are 
looking for someone to be on a team to oversee Microsoft technology, 
I offer my resume for the job. You can find it online at: http://
www.oneheadcount.com:81 I have an interesting past that would 
clearly disqualify me from being a candidate under the current 
guidelines of being totally impartial to anything and everything. 
I've spent most of the last 9 years working on products that 
combated Microsoft indirectly through my job at IBM. I've worked on 
OS/2, Netscape, and Java to name a few technologies . . . 
I also have a fair background on alternative OSes such as Linux and 
NetBSD. I tend to be drawn toward very large, complex systems of 
software and I am good at digging into the details, yet keeping the 
broader picture in mind. I am a technical philosopher of sorts, and 
I feel I could add balance to a team of experts in favor of 
competition.
    Thank you for your time and effort,
    Doug Rothert



MTC-00027428

From: Karelle Scharff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that Microsoft should be forced to contribute a 
significant amount of money to the poorest schools. NOT software, 
NOT hardware, particularly not software or hardware from which they 
would stand to profit through updates or any other means. In this 
case, significant means an amount that would get their attention, ie 
would actually hurt them. Let the schools decide where they should 
spend the money. I believe too that there should be some sort of 
ongoing accountability--so the next time they use monopolistic 
tactics (and they will) the fine is actually GREATER.
    Karelle Scharff
    p.o. box 203
    Ward, CO 80481
    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.--Ben 
Franklin



MTC-00027429

From: RON BALDWIN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:18am
Subject: Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement. CC: 
[email protected]@
inetgw Ronald W. Baldwin 509 Huntington Drive Greenwood, MO 64034 
(816) 537-8323 E-Mail 
[email protected] January 27, 2002 Attorney 
General John Ashcroft US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was pleased to learn that the Justice Department has reached a 
proposed settlement agreement in the Microsoft litigation. You now 
have the opportunity to clean up the mess created by your 
predecessor. Microsoft was the target of this litigation because of 
its size and because of its great degree of success. Your 
implementation of this settlement will bring an end to the political 
witch-hunt. Microsoft has placed a number of concrete proposals on 
the table to resolve the case. They have agreed to changes in almost 
every aspect of their business operations, from pricing, to 
distribution, to system design. These changes, if implemented, 
should provide additional competitive opportunities for Microsoft's 
competitors and more choice for computer users.
    Please go forward with the settlement and let Microsoft get back 
to business.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald W. Baldwin



MTC-00027430

From: Tanuj T
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is too easy a way out for Microsoft, predominantly because 
Microsoft has so much money, the charges Microsoft need to pay to 
settle its monopoly won't even scratch the company. This is 
meaningless because large companies will continue to get monopolies 
and pay them off without any problems. The settlement needs to go 
farther than that; to prevent large companies from getting away with 
monopolies easily.
    In addition to it being too easy for large companies to get away 
with monopolies, other companies also bundle up their software, such 
as Apple. So in reality they are also cutting off the market because 
Apple requires you to purchase their software and hardware because 
it won't work any other way.
    For example, the Mac Operating System obliges you to also buy a 
Mac printer, Mac compatible word processors, Mac games, Mac 
compatible browsers, etc.. They are cutting off the market from 
Microsoft and other companies, who can't put too much software on it 
because it's not compatible or else pay Apple to get it on. Because 
Microsoft doesn't want to waste their money, they just place it on 
their own OS. It's exactly the same idea: Microsoft bundles up 
Office and IE, just the same way Apple bundles up their software. 
However, if Apple receives the lawsuit, they will suffer a lot more 
than Microsoft, who won't get affected by the lawsuit because they 
have so much money.
    (Tanuj)
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027431

From: Dan Veditz

[[Page 28020]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I object to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust 
case. Please listen to the Attorneys General of the nine dissenting 
states and send this proposal back to the drawing board.
    Even on the surface the settlement doesn't go far enough, but 
worse it's full of the sorts of loopholes that Microsoft abused to 
make the 1995 consent decree effectively meaningless.
    -Daniel Veditz



MTC-00027432

From: Ray G Spangler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:21am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please expedite the settlement with microsoft. This unnecessary 
litigation has already cost us too much. Continuing the suit will 
only further damage our economy and delay further development of new 
technology for our future.
    Ray [email protected]



MTC-00027433

From: Peter Hollings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hold an advanced degree from the Sloan School of Management, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the areas of information 
technology and finance. I have over 30 years experience in these 
fields, during which I have developed a deep understanding of the 
processes of competition and innovation in the computer software 
industry. I first became aware of Microsoft around 1982 and have 
been a constant observer of that company's business practices over 
the succeeding years. My purpose in writing is to express my 
opposition to the proposed settlement that has been reached by the 
US Department of Justice and Microsoft concerning their antitrust 
suit. Not being trained in the formalities of the legal profession, 
I am writing nevertheless in the hopes that you will take notice of 
my objections as an American citizen, affected by this settlement, 
and despite their probable formal incorrectness. I make this 
expression on my personal behalf, although I firmly believe it also 
reflects the interests of the businesses that I have presently or 
formerly been associated with in either employment or consulting 
roles. I firmly believe and respectfully request that the Court 
consider:
    1. That as a past and potential future purchaser of Microsoft 
products, and as user of computing systems generally, that no aspect 
of the proposed settlement is in my interest.
    2. That I firmly believe that approval by the Court of the 
proposed settlement would be bad for consumers, bad for business, 
bad for innovation, bad for the beneficial functioning of market 
economics, bad for constitutional rights, such as privacy and 
security, and it would materially and adversely impair the public's 
perception of government integrity.
    3. I state my belief that the proposed settlement is so 
thoroughly flawed in every aspect that I respectfully request that 
the Court reject it from further consideration.
    4. I respectfully request that the court give full consideration 
to the filing by the American Antitrust Institute captioned as 
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. This complaint sets 
forth numerous instances in which both the DOJ and Microsoft have 
failed to comply with specific disclosure requirements of the 
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (``Tunney Act''). 
Most importantly are the failure of the DOJ to provide an accounting 
of how the settlement reached is in the public interest and the 
failure of Microsoft to fully identify its contacts with the 
government relative to the settlement. I will note here that the 
public press includes numerous articles relative to Microsoft's 
lobbying activities relevant to the antitrust settlement decision, 
none of which were included as required in Microsoft's report in 
compliance of the reporting requirement. This combination of 
circumstances gives the appearance that the public institutions of 
the American people are being manipulated against their interests 
and in a concealed way.
    5. I respectfully request that the Court give full consideration 
to these circumstances identified above and fully investigate and 
correct any improprieties in the functioning of our government in 
the interest of preserving the American people's confidence in both 
the Executive and Judicial branches of our government. The proposed 
settlement is such an egregiously bad agreement and so contrary to 
the public interest that I cannot conceive that it was honestly 
arrived at.
    Thank you,
    Peter Hollings
    Atlanta, GA 30342
    [email protected]



MTC-00027434

From: Richard Frick
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 12:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 27, 2002 Dear Judge Kollar-
Kotelly,
    It is my understanding that over the past three years every 
federal court that has reviewed the Microsoft antitrust case has 
found that Microsoft repeatedly and aggressively violated U.S. 
antitrust laws and was liable for its illegal conduct. Most 
recently, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that Microsoft 
had clearly violated antitrust laws and that any government 
settlement with Microsoft, in order to protect other members of the 
technology community and the larger public, must have three key 
elements:
    1. Terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly,
    2. Deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past violations, and
    3. Prevent any future anticompetitive activity.
    It is further my understanding that the Proposed Final Judgment 
fails to meet any of the three standards established by the court.
    My experience with Anti-Trust and Nintendo certainly influence 
my feelings about this Microsoft's situation.
    After four years of preparation for a trial, we settled out of 
court with Nintendo on the advice of our Anti-Trust council (Joe 
Alioto). He said that the current Anti-Trust climate let any 
business do anything they wished including breaking Anti-Trust law 
as long as it made ``business sense''. As a result my 
company, which held a valid US patent for technology making our 
products legal and compatible with Nintendo's game unit, died and 
left over 300 employees without United States based cartridge 
design, development and assembly work. The story of my company was 
featured in the PBS series ``Losing the War with Japan''. 
This story won an Emmy for investigative reporting.
    By not enforcing Anti-Trust laws, Microsoft will continue to do 
the same to other companies as happened to my employees and our 
company. I am sure, however, that Sun, AOL, Oracle and many others, 
in Microsoft's position would act in exactly the same manner. I 
don't want Microsoft to be replace by Sun, AOL or Oracle as the 
reigning monopoly. I simply believe Anti-Trust laws must uniformly 
and vigorously enforced!!
    I work with people who absolutely ``hate'' Microsoft. 
They believe everone who works for Microsoft are losers. It is a 
``religious'' thing similar to what Mac owners feel about 
Apple. At another small software firm I worked for, we were always 
panicked that Microsoft would eliminate the need for our software by 
baking it's capabilities into the operating system. Our original 
product was only available on the Mac. We were very cautious with 
Microsoft ``evangelists'' who visited and encouraged the 
development of a Windows version. They wanted to 
``assist'' us in the development. We didn't trust 
Microsoft and figured they wanted to understand our code for their 
own purposes. I would like to see Microsoft punished more severely 
than what seems to be happening but I do not want them destroyed. I 
do not believe they need to be broken up. I would like to see most 
of the $36 billion they have in cash taken away and spent enforcing 
the court ordered three key element mentioned above. This would send 
a strong message to companies similar to Microsoft that Anti-Trust 
laws must be observed.
    If Microsoft had to make the ``Windows'' operating 
system public domain, be paid a royalty for each copy used ($20.00), 
other innovative companies could flourish and Microsoft would 
continue to be strong and powerful. I personally like Microsoft 
products. They have brought stability to an otherwise fragmented 
platform market.
    Knowing that this document is of public record, causes me some 
fear. This fear is based on the fact that I earn my living in the 
software industry. Should I become the target of Microsoft rage for 
writing this, I could be deprived of my ability to earn a living. It 
is my strong belief that this is public disclosure is seriously 
limiting other of my collegues writing to you.
    Best Regards in a very difficult decision and thank you for 
reading this e-mail.
    Richard Frick
    [email protected]
    CC: Richard Frick,'microsoftcomments (a)doj.ca.gov''



MTC-00027435

From: Robert Chang

[[Page 28021]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:25am
Subject: Judge Kollar-Kotally, Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    As a member of the high tech industry for a number of years, I 
wish to voice my objection to the proposed final judgment in the 
U.S. vs. Microsoft case. Microsoft has used its Windows operating 
system monopoly to bully other software and hardware companies, and 
every court has ruled that they have violated anti-trust laws. 
However, the proposed settlement allows Microsoft to retain 
virtually all the profits it made illegally. Microsoft would be the 
winner if this case resulted in business as usual, yet that is 
precisely what the proposed final judgment is considering. There 
must be assurances that Microsoft's anti-competitive activities will 
cease.
    Respectfully,
    Robert K. Chang



MTC-00027436

From: Keith E. Folsom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To whom it may concern,
    My name is Keith Folsom. I am the Director of Systems and 
Communications at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington. 
I have been a computer professional since my graduation from college 
with a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science in 1981. I have had 
many roles in the field, including Software Engineer, Programmer, 
Systems Administrator, and manager. My desire to stay current in a 
field I really enjoy convinced me to enter an evening Master's 
program in Computer Science and Engineering at the University of 
Washington in 1999. I completed this program last month, graduating 
with a Master's degree.
    I am writing this letter in order to urge you to consider more 
far-reaching sanctions against Microsoft than those proposed, which 
I feel is justified in light of the conclusion that the company is a 
monopoly. It is my opinion that the sanctions as proposed will do 
little or nothing to prevent Microsoft from continuing to use their 
monopoly power to crush competition and true innovation in the 
computing industry.
    I do not believe in a government that unnecessarily interferes 
in the matters of industry. Free enterprise and capitalism normally 
self-regulate. But when a company grows too large and is no longer 
subject to the normal laws of economics, a government has the duty 
to reign this company in. As I've watched Microsoft gain a strangle-
hold on the computing industry, I've also seen my choice of products 
and solutions dwindle. It frankly scares me. And Microsoft's latest 
attempt to control the Internet with their .NET initiative convinces 
me that they have not learned any lessons from the long battle 
against the Justice Department in the anti-trust case. They are 
determined to own it all.
    Once again, I urge you to consider stronger measures against 
Microsoft, up to and including splitting the company into smaller, 
more fairly competitive units. I believe such measures are the only 
way to prevent the computing industry from sinking into a mire of 
mediocrity, with no true choice of solutions for computing problems. 
This is what monopolies do unless they are stopped. Please stop 
Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Keith Folsom
    Director, Systems & Communications  
[email protected]
    Pacific Lutheran University  WWW--http://
www.plu.edu/folsomke
    Tacoma, Washington  PGP--/pgp.txt



MTC-00027437

From: Alen Shapiro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a BAD idea. I'm a computer 
professional. I am a partner and co-founder of Softek Partners Inc. 
(http://www.softekpartners.com). I develop portable software that 
runs on Windows, UNIX and Macintosh. Time and again I've seen 
Microsoft produce software that adheres to standards, gain market 
share and then subtly ``extend'' the standard to provide 
``new facility''. Trouble is the ``new 
facility'' will only run under Microsoft operating systems 
which means that software developed using the ``new 
facility'' is no longer portable.
    This is a monopolistic tactic of the worst kind. Subtly locking 
software development into the Microsoft supported platforms. The 
initial software developers are seduced by the recommended 
``new facility'' and can hit 95% of their market with the 
product they develop thus perpetuating the monopoly and making it 
harder to jump the hurdle that would allow software developer to 
port their software to other operating system (i.e. non Microsoft 
operating systems).
    For examples of this behavior just look at the Microsoft Visual 
C++ programming suite. Look at the extensions to the ANSI standard. 
Other compiler producers (e.g. Metrowerks) have to support 
Microsoft's non-portable extensions to sell their competing 
products, and that's just on the Windows platform. What about UNIX 
and Macintosh. These other platforms should be encouraged as an 
alternative to the monopoly. The current settlement does nothing 
significant in this regard. Microsoft need to be prevented from 
extending standards without providing timely support for competing 
products in the areas they dominate. Microsoft are just too big for 
other industry participants to do anything other than roll over when 
threatened.
    Another example is the treatment of Sun's Java (dutifully 
extended by Microsoft).
    How about ``.net'' which is a ``new'' spin 
on an old (portability) idea. Why do I need to be tied to Microsoft 
services to take advantage of it. I do not trust Microsoft to allow 
competition in this area. They must be required to release all API 
specs. (including file formats) to all who request them with 
sufficient time to take advantage of the specs. Microsoft should not 
be allowed to own this resource. Once again, they are too big and 
will stifle innovation and the general commerce that would have 
resulted.
    The Internet is a public resource, it should be protected. No 
one company should be in a position to own it or it's resources. For 
example, Microsoft is in a good position to implement 
``extensions'' to the TCP-IP protocol to, say, ``save 
the net'' from its security vulnerabilities. It is a logical 
step for them to take. Perhaps not now but soon. Once those new TCP-
IP stacks are distributed (only on Microsoft platforms of course), 
interoperability with other platforms would be denied at a 
fundamental networking level. Currently Microsoft selectively target 
competing technologies by adding them to exclusions in their 
``terms of use'' license. They should be stopped from 
doing this. Specifically, I should be able to run Microsoft products 
in whatever emulators I choose, without Microsoft being allowed to 
stipulate within which virtual environment they may run. This will 
prevent Microsoft from limiting their software to only run in the 
environments they sanction and should help limit Microsoft's 
monopoly. Of course, the above preventive measure only works if 
Microsoft actually publish their APIs and file formats and, if there 
are any independent developers left to use these specs.
    You have the chance to set a line in the sand. Don't back down 
now, not after all the hard work you've done. Put enforceable 
limitations on Microsoft's business practices in place now and then 
enforce them when Microsoft test how far they can go and how far you 
are prepared to go to stop them.
    Your current (proposed) settlement has already been 
marginalized. Do you really want to have to do this whole thing over 
again in a year when Microsoft feel comfortable enough to pretend 
your definitions are no longer applicable? What remedies will you be 
able to enforce?
    Alen Shapiro
    CTO Softek Partners Inc.
    ----------
    I was just trying to turn my SPARC into a FLAME and I Carbonised 
it!!



MTC-00027438

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I respectfully submit you do not accept the Microsoft 
settlement. While I have not been a Systems Admin. for over ten 
years now, I can state with some certainty the tactics I have seen 
used by Microsoft are not normally innovative, but rather 
monopolistic. At one time Microsoft had competition in all areas 
(Lotus comes to mind the quickest), but in any area Microsoft wanted 
to own the market, the competition usually was squeezed out, often 
by the use of vague, or changing standards within their operating 
system. I saw this same technique brought out again with the idea of 
placing ``free'' computers and software in schools. This 
solution would basically have the US government assist Microsoft in 
their attempt to force Apple out of the schools, allowing Microsoft 
to monopolize even the educational system.
    PLEASE don't take the easy way out of this one! I have the 
opinion, as simplistic as it may sound, that Mr. Gates was so 
arrogant on

[[Page 28022]]

the witness stand because he had little fear of even the United 
States Government. His product was in most government offices and 
all he had to do was threaten national security with the threat of 
total economic and governmental collapse if Microsoft was broken up, 
but I fear it may well be the other way around. It may well be 
Microsoft's products which some day bring a collapse of the US 
economy--or worse.
    I am sorry I have no ``hard evidence'' to point to, 
but to those who have watched, Microsoft's intent has been clear 
nearly since the first contract with IBM: ``assimilate or 
exterminate'' could well have been their battle cry as they 
attempted to own a piece of every desktop in the world.
    Please do not allow the US Government to assist Microsoft in 
their growing monopoly... Please do not settle with Microsoft 
according to the latest terms.
    Respectfully,
    David Roberts (Diagnostics Software Engineer)
    47 King Street
    Nashua, NH 03060
    David Roberts @ Home
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00027439

From: Andrew Schaaf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To the Department of Justice:
    The current proposal for the Microsoft settlement does not do 
enough to prevent Microsoft from staying a monopoly in the computer 
industry. 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 will stop them.
    Microsoft should be forced to release the specification to their 
file formats (Word, PowerPoint, etc). This would allow other 
companies and people to create programs that could read and write to 
formats that currently only Microsoft fully knows, thereby promoting 
competition. As a user, I am annoyed when I receive a Word 
attachment from someone, because I have to ask them to send it again 
in some ``open'' format such as RTF, or open it in a 
program that attempts to read Word files, but can't do it very well.
    Please ensure that a settlement not only punishes Microsoft for 
their anti-competitive behavior, but also prevents FUTURE anti-
competitive behavior. Microsoft will continually test their limits 
with authorities, and if their acts go unpunished by those in 
charge, they will continue to act the way the have, only this time 
they will push their limits even more. Microsoft did not become 
#1 because of their ``quality software.'' they became 
#1 by intimidation and brute force.
    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.
    Andrew Schaaf
    New York



MTC-00027440

From: Ranger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am extremely disappointed in the Department of Justice 
settlement with Microsoft. This seems more a issue of the Government 
having been asleep at the switch while Microsoft honed its skills in 
predatory tactics and built a monopoly. Now the Government cannot 
find an appropriate remedy in order to reintroduce constrictive 
competition into the PC software industry.
    It is not too late for the Government to stand up to Microsoft 
and do the right thing. There is enough information from the 
existing facts in evidence to force Microsoft the step back from 
monopolistic practices.
    As for the proposed settlement, it isn't just me and most of the 
World (both free market and not), that consider the DOJ settlement 
to be a bad joke, but it also of the view of your coplaintives who 
have decided to continue the case on their own.
    As a taxpayer, I find it miserable that my hard earned money 
can't buy me better representation against the big guy. You are 
cowards for not standing up to be counted. Hide your inferiority 
behind a faceless bureaucracy.
    Do the right thing, punish Microsoft so that this doesn't happen 
again, and restore an innovative free market.
    Stuart Simpson



MTC-00027441

From: James Tracy, Ph.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft Case. It seems clear to me and many 
of my friends that the settlement is in the public interest. Only 
competitors can level the specious argument that Microsoft's 
innovation is an antitrust violation. Let's compete in the market 
place rather than litigate in the courts.
    Dr. Jim Tracy



MTC-00027442

From: Kevin Bullock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To whom it may concern:
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is woefully inadequate. 
It will not change their behavior as a corporation nor provide any 
meaningful benefit to the public interest. Please refer to Dan 
Kegel's comments at the following address:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Also please take into consideration Ralph Nader and James Love's 
comments at: http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/
rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html
    Thank you.
    --
    Pacem in terris / Mir / Shanti / Salaam / Heiwa
    Kevin R. Bullock



MTC-00027443

From: David Fetrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a programmer for slightly longer than Microsoft has 
been in existence. I have used many of their products from CP/M 
Microsoft Basic onward through Office XP. I have a great deal of 
respect for the company but believe they will absolutely take 
advantgae of every legal, or remotely argueable legal, maneuver they 
can think of to expand Microsoft beyond its current desktop monopoly 
and they think very well.
    They remind me of IBM in the early 80's that used its legal 
limits as a weapon (e.g. The famous IBM confidentially agreement. I 
may have signed one of these. I can't tell you. If we had a meeting, 
the IBM rep could have recorded it on video and showed it on TV).
    In the past Microsoft has defined words as they see fit: Make a 
network browser part of the OS and they can bundle it (even if they 
also make it available on other operating systems such as MacOS and 
Solaris). This was a redefinition of what is usually called an 
operating system (as an aside: Notice they didn't include the 
profitable Office in that redefinition). In the early days of 
Windows NT, Steve Ballmer claimed NT Workstation and NT Server were 
different architectures. This is true only if you allow a couple 
dll's and some settings to constitute a different architecture. Not 
the usual definition.
    My understanding is that Microsoft defines certain terms in the 
current proposal and that they must make public certain API's 
(defined by Microsoft) to competitors (also definited by Microsoft). 
I believe allowing them to define what constitutes the Windows API 
is a fundemental flaw. What is Windows? If the browser isn't part of 
the WindowsOS after all but all the internet functionality is folded 
into the browser code, can they keep the internet API's secret? What 
if they rename Windows ``Doors''? How far can Windows morf 
before it is no longer covered? Is .net fundementally different from 
Windows?
    I believe allowing them to define what a competitor is, is 
worse. Was Netscape a competitor? They admitted it was a threat but 
was it a competitor? Is Linux a competitor? Linux isn't even a 
company but a loose federation of sometime warring tribes. The 
public line is Linux is a niche OS, internally the infamous 
Halloween Documents show some real worry and preperations for 
battles: technical, legal and PR. Under this proposal Microsoft is 
thus able to provide huge barries to entry.
    As a monopoly Microsoft can smoother innovations it isn't ready 
for by using these techniques to make the innovation unworkable in 
Windows until Microsoft can ``innovate in'' something they 
themselves own.... later on. Delaying rather speeding innovation. 
This is not (in my opinion) in the public interest.
    David Fetrow
    [email protected]/
[email protected]
    My opinions are my own and may not be those of my employer.
    (206) 850-3381



MTC-00027444

From: Doug Mitchell

[[Page 28023]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In summary, I think this settlement is a bad one.
    The longer version is that this settlement has one major 
loophole that jumps out to anyone who understands the first thing 
about the current state and near-term future of computing. Given the 
success that Microsoft has had in the past in twisting consent 
decrees, there are likely several other that are malleable to 
Microsoft's long-term plans. The major loophole is the provision 
which gives Microsoft control over information flow for the purposes 
of ``security'' and ``authentication/
authorization'', among others. The next generation of Microsoft 
technologies (known as .NET) are distributed technologies that are 
totally reliant upon security and authentication. Any delay on 
information flow will damage, possibly irreparably, any possible 
competitive software. Without information from Microsoft, any work 
to reverse-engineer protocols would be a violation of federal law 
under the DMCA. Providing the legal cover for Microsoft to justify 
delays will provide Microsoft a window of opportunity to provide a 
competitive, bundled solution to undercut third-party software. It 
is quite frankly astounding that a provision that is this damaging 
to non-Microsoft software could even be considered minimally 
effective by someone versed in the software industry.
    There are, in fact, several ways to fix this flaw. The simplest 
way would be to strike Section J in its entirety, but this would 
merely leave the rest of the hidden flaws. Another option would be 
for the federal government to simply drop the case, despite its 
victory in both trial and appelate court. This would go back to the 
status quo prior to the anti-trust action, but it would have the 
benefit of not providing legal cover for Microsoft to delay 
information. A far better solution would be to rewrite the entire 
solution to incorporate three features. First, reasonable and non-
discriminatory licensing of the operating system to any and all 
vendors at equivalent pricing. Second, all API's for the operating 
system must be fully and openly documented, with no exceptions. This 
would protect the underlying source code of Microsoft and would 
encourage Microsoft to remove bundled features not essential to the 
core operation and therefore open the door for realistic 
competition. Third, full and open documentation of all data file 
formats. With these three components, Microsoft would be able to 
compete to the best of its ability, and third-party software would 
be able to do the same.
    Doug Mitchell
    Madison, AL



MTC-00027445

From: Robert A. Lentz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Whom it May Concern:
    I am writing to exercise my right under the Tunney Act to 
comment on the proposed settlement of the United States vs. 
Microsoft antitrust case. I have been a using computers since the 
age of fifteen, when my parents got one at home. Since then I have 
been a continuous user of computers as a consumer, and based upon 
this experience I am opposed to the proposed settlement.
    Over the past eightteen years I have seen many innovative and 
useful software programs be released by many different companies, 
and have been a satisfied customer of several of these companies.
    Unfortunately, the lifespan of these companies has not been 
great. What I have seen repeatedly is that once their product 
becomes popular, Microsoft will copy its functionality into its 
products, Office and/or Windows, and the company will steadily lose 
customers.
    So, what I have repeatedly seen is that my choice as a consumer 
has been diminished by the predatory practices of which Microsoft 
has been found guilty. To me, the proposed settlement has far too 
many conditions exempting Microsoft's behavior under certain 
conditions. This does nothing to improve my choice as a consumer in 
those areas. Nor do I see how this remedy allows for a climate in 
which new companies have air to breathe. As has been reported in the 
mainstream press, all venture capitalists ask potential software 
startups about how Microsoft competes (currently) in their area and 
what their plan is if Microsoft gets interested in the startup's 
area.
    We have seen, in the instance of the web browser wars, how 
Microsoft will ruthlessly use any tactic to gain control of popular 
markets. While we are a free capitalist society, we do believe in 
fair competition, including anti-dumping statutes. Microsoft's size 
and resources, plus their desktop and ``office 
productivity'' monopoly allow them to unfairly tie and bundle, 
often ``dumping'' the product on the market at a great 
loss. As a consumer I feel this must be corrected.
    Lastly, I must wonder about Microsoft's need to tie all this 
software into Windows. I thought Windows was merely the operating 
system. My understanding of a computer operating system is that it 
is supposed to provide the fundamental management of and interaction 
with the hardware that applications require. Thus, it seems to me 
that when Microsoft ties a software application to Windows, it is 
perverting what an operating system is supposed to be. I don't see 
merely bundling applications as ``innovation'', but rather 
as a marketing tactic in which Microsoft is abusing its monopolistic 
position.
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    Sincerely,
    Robert A. Lentz
    2200 Columbia Pike #513
    Arlington, VA 22204
    703-892-4308



MTC-00027446

From: Steve Thom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:53am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust case
    I respectfully ask that the proposed settlement be set aside, 
and the entire case be re-thought in light of continuing, dare I say 
increasing anti-competitive practices by the defendant.
    History will regard this legal event as a watershed for 
Microsoft's goal of global information technology domination. Your 
decision in this matter will be either a textbook case for proper, 
restrained government intervention, or a case for the largest pass 
given in history. If the former is chosen, the climate will be 
shifted in favor of balance. If the latter is decided, Microsoft 
will be emboldened further. It may not be possible to have a case of 
this nature again.
    Thank You,
    Steven G. Thom
    32 North 12th Street
    Saint Charles, IL 60174-1725



MTC-00027447

From: Margaret C Worsham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, Margaret C. Worsham, strongly urge the Justice Department to 
accept the Microsoft Settlement. The consumer interest has been well 
served and the time has come to end this costly and damaging 
litigation



MTC-00027448

From: Sean Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While Microsoft can be considered a monopoly, should they be 
punished for this? I used to be a Netscape User; then, when Internet 
Explorer 3 was released, I tried using it and found it to be 
substandard and buggy. As a result, I continued to use Netscape. 
Then, with Microsoft's release of IE 4, I found it to be much 
faster, more stable, and more feature complete then Netscape, and 
decided to switch browsers, not because it came bundled with my 
operating system, but because it was a superior program Microsoft 
ultimately developed a technologically superior product, is it not 
logical that people would then use it instead of Netscape? Should 
they be punished for this? Can you legally punish a company because 
they are successful? Microsoft integrated its browser to provide a 
better product for the consumer. They are in no way inhibiting 
Netscape's ability to accept. They in no way impede a user's ability 
to download Netscape and use it. Even AOL Time Warner believes IE is 
a superior browser. In their own AOL browser, they use the IE 
browser instead of Netscape. Success is not a crime.
    Should they be punished for bundling their browser with Windows? 
Now, the browser is tightly integrated with almost all features of 
Windows. It is virtually impossible to separate the two. Every time 
you open ``My Computer,'' view a help file, open Word, 
boot, or even view your desktop, you are using Internet Explorer. 
Back when Windows 3.1 was popular, IE didn't exist, and, users used 
a much more cumbersome and buggy interface to navigate files. Now, 
instead of using 2 different applications for folder browsing and 
web viewing, Microsoft integrated the two programs, in effect 
speeding up overall system performance and reliability. Furthermore, 
it also helps new computer users to ``get online'' without 
having to go through complex processes to

[[Page 28024]]

install a browser. Now, all someone has to do is boot their 
computer, and they have all the software they need to connect to the 
internet. Should Microsoft be punished for enabling people such as 
my mother to effectively use a computer? If yes, then why not punish 
Apple? They have much the same approach. Apple controls the all the 
hardware used on their computers, and install Apple's own programs 
by default in an attempt to simplify setup for users, thus allowing 
the computer illiterate to use a computer without having to have a 
tech-savvy friend set it up for them. This strategy of 
simplification is used throughout the industry, why should only 
Microsoft be punished for it? You cannot separate Microsoft because 
everything is so tightly integrated, Microsoft is nothing without 
this integration, much like Apple is nothing without their tight 
integration of software and hardware. This is the direction the 
entire industry has taken, should we thus turn the clock back on the 
computer industry?
    It is not the government's job to police the computer industry. 
Before the government tries to break up private monopolies, they 
should abolish their own. For example the US Postal Service was, for 
a long time, the only way to send mail, and thus, it had to reason 
to improve its services and was notoriously slow. With the advent of 
FedEx and UPS, the postal service has improved its service, but 
still is loosing market share because other carriers offer a better 
product. And now the government is trying to make taxpayers pay for 
its failure by trying to tax email. It is not the government's job 
to police private industry and punish companies for their success. 
For example, the government split the Bell phone companies, and at 
the time, many people reported even worse service then when they 
were a single company, hardly a win for consumers. I ask that the 
federal government and states drop all charges against Microsoft.
    Sean Turner
    Sales Representative
    Rowena's Designs
    15232 Stratford Court
    Monte Sereno, CA 95030
    Phone: (408) 395-7907
    Fax: (408) 395-6923
    Email:  
[email protected]
    Web:  
www.sensability.inc.new.net



MTC-00027449

From: Oz Suguitan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please, please, please, do not let Microsoft get away with 
beating up the market. Don't let them continue to bully us into 
following their corporate strategy. I'd like to one day have a 
choice for word processors, choose a non-Microsoft product, and be 
assured that my documents and applications will work correctly. I'd 
like for Apple to have a serious chance at putting out a secondary 
OS, without fearing the loss of MS Office for Macintosh. I'd like to 
know that Microsoft's products, if I choose them, have been well 
tested by Microsoft, because of competitive pressures, instead of 
the current system where I'm forced to buy the damn software whether 
it's buggy or not, because ALL the applications I use (which are 
probably owned by Microsoft) will require an upgrade. There's no 
competition, because they were allowed to kill or brutalize their 
competitors unfairly. YOU NEED TO MAKE THEM PAY FOR PAST MISTAKES 
TOO. I know that this case only focuses on the Netscape stuff, but 
don't forget what happened to Novell, Borland, and others. They need 
to be broken up. This is the best way to get them to follow the 
rules and play fair!
    This settlement stinks. Donations of THEIR software and hardware 
to charities only propagates use of their software and hardware. You 
are just giving them what they want. I'm disgusted.
    Oz Suguitan



MTC-00027450

From: J. Scott Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I wanted to submit my comments on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I am very much opposed to the settlement. I don't feel 
that it goes far enough to restore competition in the computer 
industry. I am much more impressed by the 9 dissenting states 
proposal, and I beg you to reject the current settlement and back 
the remaining states.
    First of all I feel that the settlement was prompted by the Bush 
administration and therefore it was very much politically motivated. 
In my mind there is no way that this settlement would ever have 
happened under the Clinton administration. I also read that 
Microsoft donated far more money to the Republican party, and there 
is no doubt in my mind that they wanted to get Mr. Bush elected. I 
feel that the settlement should be rejected on this basis alone.
    Second of all, Microsoft's monopoly has not been a benifit to 
the public. Since the trial began, a promising competitor to 
Microsoft (Be Inc. makers of the excellent BeOS) has gone out of 
business. This was no doubt due to Microsoft controlling the boot 
loader. While the settlement addresses the boot loader issue, I 
don't feel that it goes far enough to prevent future abuse. If I had 
my way I would force Microsoft to make all of their systems dual 
bootable by default. Linux is free, they should have to include it 
with Windows to give the public an option. Or better yet: make 
Microsoft pay to resurrect BeOS and include it on some computers 
systems.
    Third, I have just discovered in the last few days that 
Microsoft has extended their monopoly in yet another way, right 
under your noses. There are now audio CD's on the market which will 
only play on computers with the Windows Operating Systems (for 
example the CD More Fast and Furious). This is an OUTRAGE!! There is 
no way that they should be allowed to sell CD's that are only 
playable on machines with Windows.
    Another recent example is Microsoft suing Lindows, saying people 
will confuse Lindows OS with Windows XP. This is rediculous, it is 
obviously another attempt my Microsoft to quash a competitor.
    I could go on, but I will end it here with a request to PLEASE 
reject the settlement. Thanks for your time.
    James Scott Edwards
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Please note that I am not affiliated in any way with any of 
Microsoft's competitors. I am a software engineer and I have worked 
on and used many different computers systems in the last 25+ years. 
I have seen many abuses by Microsoft and I hope that you can stop 
them and restore competition in this industry.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027451

From: Christopher N. Deckard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am concerned about the settlement between the US Department of 
Justice and Microsoft Corporation. After years of court battles, 
depositions, shuffling of paper, it seems that we are no where near 
a settlement which will punish Microsoft for their monopolistic 
behavior, and we are no where near a settlement which will protect 
not only the Open Source community, but closed source corporations 
as well.
    I am particularly concerned about the fact that there is nothing 
in the settlement which prevents, or punishes, Microsoft in the 
event that they ``sabotage'' Windows applications to not 
run properly on competing operating environments. Within the next 
few years, there will be many applications which have the ability to 
run Windows software, but not on a Microsoft Windows operating 
system. Particularly software from the Wine project. Microsoft is 
known for sabotaging software to not function as intended on 
competing products.
    Take for instance Digital Research's DR-DOS operating system. 
(Digital Research's successor is Caldera). Microsoft added code to 
beta copies of Windows 3.1 so it would display spurious and 
misleading error messages when run on DR-DOS. They are known for 
these kinds of practices, and if there is nothing in place to 
prevent them from doing it again, it will happen. In the case of the 
Wine project, this would completely put an end to any kind of 
functioning software which Microsoft didn't have under its 
monopolistic grip.
    I strongly urge the US Department of Justice to take a better 
look at a proper settlement. One which will benefit not only the 
Open Source development community, but competing corportations as 
well. The DOJ has spent years trying to do the right thing... the 
DOJ should end it the right way.
    Thank you,
    Chris
    Christopher N. Deckard
    Lead Web Systems Developer
    [email protected]
    Engineering Computer Network
    http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/
    Purdue University



MTC-00027452

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 28025]]

Date: 1/28/02 12:41am
Department Of Justice
Microsoft Case
Tunney Act comment
January 28, 2002
    At the request of the DOJ, this Tunney Act comment is being 
submitted by email.
    The Revised Proposed Final Judgment in U.S. vs. Microsoft is not 
in the publics best interest, because Microsoft's monopoly will 
remain intact.
    Some concerns are:
    1. The court has determined that Microsoft maintained its 
monopoly illegally, partly by overcharging consumers, worldwide. The 
United States taxpayers should not shoulder the burden for the 
expenses that Microsoft will incur to mitigate the illegal activity. 
Microsoft management and/or shareholders should pay the expenses, 
after taxes have been calculated. Will Microsoft be permitted to use 
the expenses incurred as a result of this settlement, to reduce 
taxable income?
    2. Microsoft's illegal activities extend to most of its 
products, however, the Revised Proposed Final Judgment generally 
only addresses a type of product referred to as 
``middleware''. Will there be further litigation that 
addresses the Operating System and other products?
    3. The proposed resolutions may provide some relief for ten or 
twenty large companies, under licensing agreements, but Microsoft 
remains in control. How will small companies and not-for-profit 
organizations compete?
    4. Most, if not all of Microsoft's ``inventions'', 
have come from competitors, or academic institutions funded, in part 
by the very consumers that Microsoft has exploited. Does the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment change what was illegal and unethical in the 
past, into legal and accepted activities?
    5. The damage done to consumers by this monopoly goes well 
beyond monetary damages. The restrictive way in which Microsoft 
constructs its products, makes it very difficult and expensive to 
use the full potential of a computer. The lost opportunities to gain 
new knowledge and abilities, are enormous to children and adults, 
especially to those that are monetarily disadvantaged. Will the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment be a tool for widening the 
information divide?
    6. Microsoft's model encourages monopoly by default. To share 
ideas with someone that uses Microsoft products it is easier and 
sometimes necessary to use Microsoft products. This isn't a 
technical requirement, it is deliberately enforced by Microsoft's 
business practices. If the Revised Proposed Final Judgment is 
adopted, will people still be obliged to purchase Microsoft products 
to communicate with people that only have Microsoft products?
    7. Competition is an essential component of the United States 
economy. Without competition there is no way to set a fair value for 
products and services. By allowing Microsoft to continue controlling 
the computer software industry, it will not be possible to determine 
a fair value for the products and services that the software 
industry produces. If the Revised Proposed Final Judgment is 
accepted, what will stop Microsoft from pursuing its monopoly?
    8. It seems unnatural for one company to control the tools of 
communication. Microsoft didn't invent; the computer, software, 
email, or the Internet. Yet, Microsoft has control, or, is pursuing 
control of all those and other communication tools. This control, 
which has been obtain by illegal activities, would not be palatable 
even if it had been obtained legally. If the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment is approved will Microsoft still be permitted to control 
communication?
    9. The Free Software (free as in free speech) and Open Source 
communities have a healthy amount of competition in each type of 
product that they produce. These communities are populated by 
talented professionals and, also, by those that are learning. If the 
environment that Microsoft participates in is healthy why is there 
no competition?
    10. The founder of Microsoft, William Gates, has publicly 
referred to Free/Open Source software as a cancer. Some of the 
groups and individuals in Free Software/Open Source communities, 
feel that it is more important to help disadvantaged people, than to 
be paid for their time and expertise. Will Microsoft be allowed to 
destroy these communities?
    Those are just a few of many concerns raised by the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment in, U.S. vs. Microsoft This settlement was 
arrived at during a time of unprecedented grief and tragedy for the 
United States and World, following the events of September 11, 2001. 
Further pressure was put on those in the Judicial branch by 
President Bush, when he asked that this case be settled quickly. The 
terrorists should not be allowed to affect the good judgement of 
those that uphold the law.
    The following is an example of misinformation that is present in 
this case:
    Quoting from the Competitive Impact Statement, under, B. Factual 
Background, 1. Microsoft's Operating System Monopoly 
``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. The relevant market for evaluating Microsoft's 
monopoly power is the licensing of all Intel-compatible personal 
computer operating systems worldwide. Intel-compatible personal 
computers are designed to function with Intel's 80x86 and successor 
families of microprocessors (or compatible microprocessors). 
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. Moreover, consumers are very reluctant to 
substitute away from Intel- compatible personal computers (for any 
reason, including an increase in operating system prices) because to 
do so would entail incurring substantial costs and would not result 
in a satisfactory substitute. Thus, a monopolist of operating 
systems for Intel-compatible personal computers can set and maintain 
the price of a license substantially above that which would be 
charged in a competitive market without losing so many customers as 
to make the action unprofitable.''
    This statement comes to a correct conclusion, but the facts are 
wrong. Operating systems can and are built to run on a variety of 
microprocessors. Debian GNU/Linux supports several microprocessors. 
Microsoft makes huge profits, but has ignored the other 
microprocessor manufactures, probably because the profit margins 
wouldn't be as high. This practice may be good for Intel, but isn't 
good for Intel's competitors, and it isn't good for consumers. The 
reason everyone uses Microsoft products, is that Microsoft products 
will not communicate with other software. Microsoft and Intel don't 
have technically superior products, they are locked in a monopoly, 
that is driven by Microsoft's unwillingness to communicate.
    The standards for formating documents, spreadsheets, etc., need 
to be in the public domain. We need to be able to communicate 
freely. The free market system needs to be dominated by healthy 
competition, not by monopolies.
    The states that did not agree to the Proposed Final Judgment, 
have written a proposal that could break the monopoly that Microsoft 
holds. It is not the only possible solution. Any workable solution 
must remove control of the standards from Microsoft.
    The Revised Proposed Final Judgment; is not in the publics best 
interest, will not remove the monopolist powers from Microsoft, will 
not provide justice for those that have been and are being harmed. I 
ask that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly not accept the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Douglas Jensen
    South Jordan, Utah USA
    computer user



MTC-00027453

From: Paul Shryer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my disagreement with the proposed 
settlement between US DOJ and Microsoft.
    I am a Information Technology Professional who works on a daily 
basis with Microsoft software and license agreements. There are many 
problems I have noticed with the Final Judgement proposed by the 
DOJ, I shall mention the two greatest issues I have with this 
settlement.
    1. A provision is included to ``prevent Microsoft from 
using Anti-competitive practices against OEM who load competing 
practices.'' There is a big loophole in this provision 
unfortunately. It does not prevent Microsoft from charging a set 
price to all OEMs and then providing discounts and rebates to OEMs 
that sell only Microsoft products or that help Microsoft extend its 
monopoly into additional markets. Several companies currently use 
similar agreements and programs. It would take little effort for 
Microsoft to adopt similar practices.

[[Page 28026]]

    2. This proposed final judgement does not seem to have any sort 
of enforcement. While it is true that the proposal calls for a three 
person panel to review the activities of Microsoft I seen nothing 
that empowers the panel to do anything more than recommend to 
Microsoft management. They do not seem to have any real power to 
overrule management and prevent
    Microsoft from undertaking anti-competitive practices.
    Paul Shryer
    Network Technician
    Duluth, MN



MTC-00027454

From: Stevens, Derek
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 12:43am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    DR SIRS,
    I HAVE BEEN WATCHING THE UNFOLDING OF THE MICROSOFT CASE AND I 
AM CONVINCED THEY HAVE BEEN RAILROADED. I THINK NOW IS THE TIME TO 
GET THIS THING BEHIND US, AS OUR COUNTRY IS ABOUT TO HEAD OUT OF 
RECESSION. AFTER WATCHING THE ENRON DEBACLE AND THE CS FIRST BOSTON 
ESCAPADE I CAN'T REALLY SEE WHAT MICROSOFT IS BEING PUNISHED FOR? SO 
I THINK THE SETTLEMENT IS A FAIR ONE AND LETS GET ON WITH OUR LIVES.
    THANK YOU,
    DEREK G. STEVENS



MTC-00027455

From: Brian Reed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I write to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement as a 
software programmer/consultant for the Windows platform for over 5 
years (and for MS-DOS 10 years before that) In summary I feel the 
settlement is well intended but falls well short of appropriate 
action.
    I don't suggest or desire radical action like splitting up the 
company or forcing release of their source code, and I'm not 
confident either would help the computing consumer anyways. For me, 
it's very much about fair marketing and advertising practicies. The 
settlement must be more forward looking. The harm done in the past 
by MS marketing, advertising, OEM deals, etc methods cannot be 
undone ... the question is where do we go from here, today. For the 
last couple years, the DOJ suit has forced them to tread lightly ... 
that in itself has been halfway helpful, thank you! MS must be 
relieved of power to regulate their OEM resellers and competition as 
they have done in the past. It is the resellers that can best 
customize systems for clients and move the state of the art of 
computer use ahead, now that there are many qualified personal & 
business OS options.
    Attention must also be given to MS affiliations. Monopoly power 
can be abused here especially, for example the advertising of 
affiliates and 3rd parties embedded in every Windows install I've 
seen since Win95. Or especially the old MSN ``deal'' with 
new PCs... users committed to 3 years of MSN membership to get a 
rebate on the PC, only to find out that the MSN ISP usage is a 
horrible pain in the neck that they've contracted to for the full 
term. The new MSN deal is that it's free for a limited term (I 
believe 1 year), but what they don't tell us is that it's a 
*LIMITED* MSN connection (not the typical Windows OS DialUp!), and 
that it requires extra, custom MSN software which itself is 
practically unusable. Also, I believe the proposed settlement has 
many loopholes, with many due to insufficient definitions of terms 
like ``API''.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments,
    Brian G. Reed
    Warren, MI 48088



MTC-00027456

From: Mark Hinds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement fails to restore or protect competition 
in the PC OS market place. It seems to legitimize MS's monopoly and 
places far to much discretion in MS's hands. One need only apply the 
following simple test. If MS agrees to something then it must be 
good for MS. MS has agreed to this settlement and therefore the 
settlement must be good for MS. If the settlement did protect and 
foster future competition then MS would not agree to it. It is 
simply a fact that MS will have to be ordered to do anything of 
substance to remedy its abuses. It is very disturbing that the DOJ 
has opted for expedience in place of justice and public benefit. 
With real competition the price of PC operating software would be 1/
10th of today's MS prices, and quality (i.e. robustness and 
security) would be years ahead of MS's current quality.
    MS used its PC OS dominance to extinguish Netscape. It has been 
found that this was done deliberately to protect its PC OS monopoly. 
MS must not be allowed to benefit from this illegal conduct and must 
be prevented from repeating such conduct in the future. The proposed 
settle makes no effort to deprive MS of any benefits it accrued as a 
result of illegal conduct, does nothing to mitigate the effects of 
the conduct, and makes only a sheepish effort to prevent it in the 
future.
    I strongly urge the court to reject this settlement and hold 
proper public hearings to find an effective remedy. Further, I see 
the only effective and workable remedy to be structural. It will not 
be possible to enforce conduct remedies with MS. It has not worked 
in the past and will not work in the future.
    Mark Hinds
    Concerned US Citizen
    Senior SW Engineer
    Edmonds WA 98020



MTC-00027457

From: Suen Kit Chau ( Jason )
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear U.S. Department of Justice
    As I read from your website, the United States and Microsoft 
tentatively agreed to the entry of a revised proposed final judgment 
to resolve the United States'' civil antitrust case against 
Microsoft on November 6, 2001. I believe Microsoft is not guilty 
because of following points.
    (1) In 1995 years, No one can believe computers can develop or 
improve that fast. Microsoft Internet Explorer Web browser combine 
with Windows operating system. However, it is just a part of system 
in operating system. And unfortunately, other co-operate such as 
Netscape also created same system. It will not be happened if US 
government can make a law especially for computer system.
    (2) I believe it is only a kind business method. If other 
company can have that powerful to compete with Microsoft, Windows 
will not longer be the popular operating system anymore. Strongest 
company can earn more money than other. It is the rule in the 
business world.
    (3) However, I think Microsoft should have partnerships with 
other company, such as Netscape, JAVA, Sun Microsystems. Seen that, 
customer can get more benefits.
    thanks for reading my email.
    Suen Kit, Chau



MTC-00027458

From: john paulson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I oppose the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust 
case for the following reasons:
    The Microsoft Office suite is one reason for the entrenchment of 
the Windows operating system on personal computers. The lack of 
viable non-Microsoft equivalents to MS Office is one source of that 
entrenchment. Document formats are descriptions of the files 
produced by the Microsoft Office suite of products (MS Word, MS 
Excel, MS Powerpoint).
    Document formats are distinct from APIs.
    Nowhere is there a requirement that Microsoft document and 
freely disclose the document formats used by their office products.
    Because the document formats are not available, developers of 
products wishing to inter-operate with or compete with those of 
Microsoft Office must reverse engineer the document format. Besides 
being time consuming, this is an error-prone process. The resulting 
products fail to work as well with the documents. In addition, 
changes made by Microsoft to those document formats when new 
versions of Microsoft products are released require non-Microsoft to 
once again perform reverse engineering. This delays the release of 
competing products, further cementing Microsoft's entrenchment in 
office productivity applications.
    THEREFORE:
    Microsoft must document the formats of files produced by their 
office productivity applications.
    Microsoft must make that documentation freely available, so that 
non-Microsoft products can read and write documents produced by 
Microsoft's office productivity applications.

[[Page 28027]]

    And, Microsoft must release the document format concurrently, if 
not prior to, the release of newer versions of Microsoft's office 
productivity applications.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't 
meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...''
    (The above quotation is from http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html) As that article states, Microsoft faces 
competition from open source software, such as Linux, FreeBSD and 
Samba. Microsoft should not be allowed to forbid disclosure to 
asymmetric threats to its dominance.
    THEREFORE:
    Microsoft should release the API, Documentation and 
Communications Protocols to all who ask, or make it freely available 
(by placing on their website, www.microsoft.com). This will in no 
way hinder Microsoft's ability to innovate and develop new products 
and combinations of products, but it will allow non-Microsoft 
developers to inter-operate with Microsoft products.
    Microsoft has proposed deploying many millions of dollars worth 
of computers and (Microsoft) software to (K-12) schools. This should 
be rejected out of hand. Currently, the only meaningful competition 
Microsoft has in the K-12 education marketplace is Apple Computer. 
Were Microsoft to --sell-- computers running Microsoft 
software to schools at discounts of 80 to 90%, it would be viewed as 
an anti-competitive action by a monopolist: dumping. Giving it away 
can only be worse, (mega-dumping?).
    THEREFORE:
    Microsoft should not be allowed to donate computers and 
software. If Microsoft wishes to aid schools in this wise, it may 
donate money and allow the educators to decide how to spend it on 
computers and software.
    Sincerely,
    John Paulson



MTC-00027459

From: Brendel, Gregory J
To: Microsoft ATR
Date; 1/28/02 12:51 am
Subject; Microsoft Settlement (Please Support)
January 16, 2002
Gregory Brendel
4650 Cole Avenue #326
Dallas, TX 75205-5547
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to take a moment to express my support for the recent 
settlement concluded between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice. I believe this agreement is good for the computer industry 
and consumers in general. The settlement is comprehensive and 
requires many concessions from Microsoft. For example, Microsoft has 
agreed to document and disclose for use by its competitors various 
interfaces that are internal to Windows'' operating system 
products. Also, Microsoft will be monitored under the agreement by a 
three-member Technical Committee to assure the company meets its 
obligations. This committee will also take complaints from any third 
party who feels Microsoft is not complying with any provision of the 
settlement. As a worker in the computer industry, I understand the 
importance of Microsoft to our industry and the entire economy. I 
also believe the government has more important matters to handle 
than to penalize a great American company such as Microsoft. Please 
focus my tax dollars on Homeland security and also on protecting 
U.S. Companies from illegal competition from foreign companies. 
Please look into tactics of the Japanese companies who control the 
fiat panel computer screen market.
    In summary, I hope the federal government will continue to 
support the settlement and not reopen litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Gregory Brendel



MTC-00027460

From: Thomas J. Valerio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Thomas Valerio. I've been a professional programmer 
for more than 20 years now, a large part of that spent as a systems 
programmer working on an operating system used by the University of 
Michigan. In the late 80's the University of Michigan made the 
determination that it was no longer in the best interest of the 
university to put a large amount of effort into operating system 
development and made a determined effort to migrate off of the 
operating system that it had helped develop. In the summer of 1996 
that migration was substantially completed and the university ceased 
all non-comercial operating system operation and development. As an 
active developer of that operating system I was clearly at a 
crossroads in my career, in retrospect I realized that my concern 
for my future was not tied specifically to the operating system that 
I had spent so much of my professional life working with, but that I 
was unlikely to see the inside of another operating system unless I 
went to work for a commercial operating system company. After 20 
years in a university environment, I felt that that was clearly an 
unlikely option. It was around this time that I discovered Linux. In 
the 6 years that have passed since then the computing landscape has 
changed dramatically. In particular Microsoft has developed from a 
major player into a monopoly and we have arrived at the point where 
it has no viable commercial competition. It does, however, have the 
possibility of some very serious competition in the form of Linux, 
and the support of the legions of individuals that quietly and 
persistently move Linux and other open source projects forward. In 
order for that competition to flourish however, it must have the 
blessing of the court. While I certainly am aware of the genesis of 
the current anti-trust case with respect to Netscape, the fact is 
that that particular battle has been lost and like Humpty Dumpty and 
the Kings Men, there is nothing that the court can do about it. So, 
to get to the heart of my point, the most disappointing aspect of 
the Proposed D.O.J. settlement is that when the possibility of 
serious competition from Linux and Open Source looks the most 
promising, the proposed settlement is silent with respect to non-
comercial solutions, which are clearly the only real, viable 
competition in sight. There are clearly many other aspects of the 
proposed judgment that argue for it's rejection by the court and I 
would like to express my support for most of them as well. I accept 
the fact that this has been an extremely difficult case and a very 
drawn out process, however I think the court has an obligation to 
reject this proposed settlement and failure to reject it will have a 
serious, detrimental, and long lasting negative impact on the entire 
software business. I apologize for a less than elegant presentation 
of my argument, others have written far better on this subject than 
I, and I want to thank the court for considering my opinion.
    Thomas Valerio



MTC-00027461

From: Eli Arnold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:53am
Subject: Anti-trust
    I have just cancelled my AOL subscription upon learning that 
they had joined the attack on Microsoft. To create a product and 
sell it with conditions is neither immoral, nor illegal, and the 
Sherman anti-trust act is being once more used in a contradictory, 
unfair, and unjust manner. AOL has in no way been wronged by 
Microsoft and neither has Internet Explorer. I personally use 
microsoft products everyday, and they are well designed and quality 
products. Microsoft is the shining example of American productivity 
and achievement and is personally inspiring to me. It seems that the 
original American values, ingenuity, independence, economic and 
social freedom, are quickly being destroyed by overregulation, 
concern for the public good at the expense of the individual, and 
``economic rights.'' Their is no right to a profit, nor to 
success, and the states and corporations suing Microsoft should take 
notice of the fact. Microsoft has never used physical coercion to 
pursue it's ``interests.'' The same cannot be said for the 
United States Government. I am an intelligent, competent and capable 
young man, but watching what's being done to Bill Gates I feel a 
hesitation to pursue achievements of my own in this nation. I could 
not keep quiet, as he has, and watch, while people who could not 
have written a single line of Explorer's code determine the future 
of his lifes work, of his personal achievements, and prevent him 
from being able to plan a single day ahead, as he cannot plan for 
the arbitrary whims of society. Someday, a nation will inherit the 
moral legacy which the founders of this nation reached nearest, and 
the productive and intelligent members of this society will desert. 
You read these letters, because the

[[Page 28028]]

opinions of the majority seem to be surpassing in importance the 
notion of individual rights. Its Socrates execution all over again.
    Eli Arnold (503) 254 8513
    15811 E. Burnside St. Portland OR 97233



MTC-00027462

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    If public profits are considered, Microsoft Corp. should provide 
ANSI with Windows 98, WindowsME, and Office2000, and it should 
withdraw them from the client market.
    Sincerely
    ASKA Intelligence Systems, Inc.
    TEL 81-722-80-0918 / FAX 
81-722-80-0917
    e-mail:[email protected]



MTC-00027463

From: Jeff Rehbein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
    To Whom it May Concern:
    In accordance with the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on 
the proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust 
case. I believe that there are many problems with the proposed 
settlement. As shown by Dan Kegel's open letter (http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html), there are so many holes in the 
settlement that it is essentially useless. However, I will focus my 
comments on a specific group of actions by Microsoft that affect my 
work directly.
    I work as a Macintosh game developer. My work entails both 
porting games originally written for the Microsoft Windows platform 
to run on the Macintosh platform, and writing original games for the 
Macintosh platform. In the following paragraphs, I will show how 
Microsoft's anticompetitive actions have harmed (and are continuing 
to harm) me, my company's customers, and the customers of virtually 
all developers of games for the Macintosh.
    In 1992, OpenGL was introduced as an open standard application 
programming interface (API) for 2D and 3D graphics. Over the years, 
it has gained wide adoption by operating system vendors (OSV) and 
graphics sub-systems hardware vendors (GSHV). Seeing that adopting 
OpenGL would increase the number of games available for the Windows 
platform, Microsoft adopted it. However, Microsoft only adopted it 
because it didn't have a competing product.
    As Microsoft has done time and time again, it quickly turned out 
it's own version of someone else's innovation. In this case (as in 
most cases), it's version (Direct3D) was nowhere near as good as the 
original. However, Microsoft tied it to Windows (still on the same 
pattern) and to its development environment and some developers used 
it. Recently, Direct3D has became good enough to compete with 
OpenGL. So what did Microsoft do? It removed OpenGL support from 
Windows XP before release--support that was already there. 
OpenGL can still be used, but the support has to be added by each 
GSHV, seriously complicating the situation.
    Removal of OpenGL support from Windows harms several groups of 
people:
    1. Developers who know and wish to use OpenGL in a Windows 
application.
    2. Developers who want to write 3D (and 2D) applications that 
can be compiled for Windows and other operating systems from one 
codebase.
    3. Developers who port applications originally written for 
Windows to run on other operating system (the original application 
may have been written with OpenGL under different circumstances, 
making it far easier to port)
    4. In the long run, other OSVs that depend on OpenGL will likely 
be harmed. This is because usage of OpenGL will drop off, which will 
lead to a stagnation in the OpenGL standard.
    As if removing OpenGL support from Windows wasn't enough, 
Microsoft recently purchased key patents from Silicon Graphics, Inc. 
that may give it even more ammunition against the competing, open 
standard. I can't say for sure what Microsoft will do with this new 
power, but given its past history I think it's a sure bet that it 
will be bad for OpenGL, and by extension, bad for developers and 
consumers. One company should not be able to so negatively affect an 
open standard. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement does nothing 
to prevent this sort of activity. Microsoft also hurts all 
developers who port Windows games to the Macintosh by keeping all 
DirectX APIs usable on Windows alone. Microsof routinely changes the 
API calls so that developers can't make a ``glue library'' 
(a glue library is used to easily convert calls to one API to calls 
to different API) that can keep being used in each new project. 
There is no need to so routinely change the actual interface calls 
of APIs. Other OSVs do everything they can to keep those calls the 
consistent. Doing otherwise would break compatibility and drive away 
developers. Only a company with a monopoly could do this and 
survive. One DirectX API in particular gives port developers 
trouble-- DirectPlay. DirectPlay is an API that makes it 
relatively easy to add networking features to a game. Because of the 
lack of documentation of the internal message structure, any port of 
a game originally written using DirectPlay cannot communicate with 
the original version. This relegates users of the ported version to 
a second-class status. Although technically possible to reverse-
engineer the protocol, Microsoft actively thwarts such attempts. The 
one known instance where the protocol was reverse-engineered and 
used in a product (which took 6 months), Microsoft promptly 
overhauled the protocol and released a new version which completely 
broke the compatibility. Microsoft's actions with the DirectX API 
serve solely to strengthen the applications barrier-to-entry, even 
at the expense of their own developers. Unfortunately, the proposed 
settlement does absolutely nothing to alleviate this or any problems 
concerning this barrier. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that 
there is no remedy for the above problems short of separating the OS 
business from the rest of Microsoft. As show in the previous 
reference to Dan Kegel's open letter and in my own, the proposed 
settlement will do little to limit Microsoft's anticompetitive 
behavior. It would be a grievous waste of taxpayer money if this 
settlement was the end result of the case. I implore you to 
reconsider this course of action.
    Thank you for your time in considering this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey Rehbein
    Macintosh Games Developer



MTC-00027464

From: paul podnar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:56am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I do not believe that the proposed remedies represent what is in 
the best interest of the people or the computer industry. My company 
has been damaged by the illegal workings of Microsoft and so have 
many others in the world.
    The entire Apple computer platform and Motorola has been damaged 
by the monopolistic practices and pressure put on Apple to stop 
certain developments. Netscape went from a majority player in the 
browser field to a minority player and almost bankrupt. Java was 
corrupted by the efforts of Microsofts J++ development and not 
Microsoft is after the internet with their .Net strategy which was 
really built upon Netscapes efforts.
    Microsofts efforts also misrepresent the stability and security 
of all their operating systems and application programs. Many 
individuals and businesses have been damaged due to lost work and 
downtime caused by the low quality standards of the Microsoft 
software.
    My remedies would include:
    1. A payment to Netscape/AOL for the market stolen by Microsofts 
free browser. This might be one half of current estimated Internet 
explorer users times about 29 dollars for the people that would have 
purchased a Netscape product.
    2. A major free update of Windows 98 and the Office program 
which would run on the computers purchased by businesses in the 1998 
year which would work as advertised and be much more stabile.
    3. A payment made to Sun for damages done to the JAVA platform
    4. A payment made to Apple computer for the damage to the 
internal development of software which is known in the industry 
including Quicktime and Apple Works.
    5. The inclusion of Quicktime as the default Windows Media 
Player/ Authoring medium to generally further the multimedia 
capabilities of millions of Windows users.
    6. The inclusion of firewire support on all Windows desktops to 
further the advance of this quality high speed Apple bus technology.
    7. Finally, a public admission of guilt from Bill Gates as to 
his involvement in the above matters and a media broadcast of the 
trial findings and testimonies key industry and Microsoft personnel. 
I would find the truth of this case much more interesting than the

[[Page 28029]]

OJ Simpson trial and much more valuable to the industry, the 
populace and history.
    Thank you for this forum to come forward and for a small part in 
the process of Justice.
    Paul j. Podnar
    President
    Accommodata Corporation



MTC-00027465

From: Andy Cristina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I apoligize for submiting this email so late, but I with to 
express my opinion that the proposed Microsoft Settlement is not 
sufficient to allow other companies to produce viable competing 
products. My main complaint is that Microsoft is not being asked to 
release the Microsoft Office document formats. In order for a 
competing product to have a chance, it must be able to let the user 
read and write Office files.
    Andrew Cristina,
    University of New Orleans,
    Association of Computing Machinery Chair
    Software Intern at Penta Corporation



MTC-00027466

From: Kent Rosenkoetter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a graduate student in computer science (University of North 
Carolina--Chapel Hill) I cannot help but be aware of the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. And while I believe it to be one of the 
most important cases for the computer industry in years, I tend to 
avoid dwelling on it because all I can feel is frustration. 
Microsoft has:
    1. Used their OS monopoly and OEM agreements to prevent any 
computer manufacturer from selling dual-boot systems, effectively 
killing BeOS and incredibly slowing the spread of other OSes, 
particularly Free Software and Open Source OSes.
    2. Used their Windows OS to spread Internet Explorer and Outlook 
Express, making the entire world suceptible to hundreds of viruses 
that do not work on any other browser/email client. This costs 
American business alone billions of dollars every year.
    3. Many other similarly disgusting actions I do not need to list 
because I know many of my colleagues have already done so in detail.
    My frustration stems from the proposed settlement. First, that 
the breakup of Microsoft did not take place. Though I do not believe 
a mere two pieces would have been sufficient, it would at least have 
shown the public that the government is willing to mete out some 
serious punishment for such flagrantly illegal behavior. Second, 
that such a puny settlement would be proposed and even endorsed by 
members of the government. The settlement does not adequately 
restrict MS's future behavior, it leaves huge loopholes for 
exploitation, and it for the most part neglects the concept of 
compensation. While I believe the settlement may have been 
negotiated in good faith by the prosecutors, the final agreement 
does not account for the severity of the crimes or for MS's habit of 
exploitation and arrogance.
    Actually, I do not believe that any settlement negotiated with 
Microsoft will be in the public interest. Microsoft's lawyers will 
not agree to anything that will seriously curtail MS's activities, 
and MS's activities are entirely centered around control of all 
aspects of computing. No, that is not an overzealous fanatical 
statement. That is a direct extrapolation of the past trends that 
led to MS's current monopolies in operating systems, office 
software, and web browsers, extended to current plans like .NET and 
subscription-based software licensing. Any final judgement capable 
of effectively affecting Microsoft will never be agreed to by 
Microsoft.
    This email is meant to express extreme displeasure with the 
proposed settlement. It is not meant to offer possible alterations 
for the reason above. Though my original thought when I learned of 
the breakup Judge Jackson ordered was ``Three companies. 
Operating Systems, Applications, and Web Services.'' It seems 
that won't happen now. If you truly want an effective solution, 
force Microsoft to pay damages to every person and business that is 
a victim of a Microsoft-only virus. That will not eliminate their 
monopolies or promote competition for the future, but it will 
certainly take away their financial gain from their illegally 
acquired monopolies. It will also make the millions that have been 
victims of the serious problems in Microsoft software feel a little 
better.
    Kent Rosenkoetter
    Graduate Student
    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill



MTC-00027467

From: Eric Weeks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wanted to take some time and proactively tell you that I am 
very disturbed at the proposed Microsoft settlement. Microsoft's 
actions have been devastating to many companies and in the industry 
and have significantly slowed innovation and progress. Their claims 
to the contrary are ludicrous upon a review of their effect on the 
industry.
    I am particularly concerned about their Trojan horse of 
``aid'' to schools by donation of hardware (compatible 
with Windows of course) and software (surely their proprietary 
software) which can be donated at a real cost which is a very, very 
small fraction of the retail cost. The beauty of this arrangement 
for Microsoft is that it also gives them a greater market share in 
the one area they don't have a monopoly--schools. Apple is 
reportedly running scared and they should be. It's a hidden coup for 
Microsoft. Microsoft has broken the law and despite their benefit to 
the American economy, there have been corresponding, huge, losses in 
jobs, smaller, innovative companies, and value to customers. Look at 
the price of Microsoft Office. Look at how inferior software 
(Windows and countless other pedestrian Microsoft products) has 
become the de facto standard when reasonably priced, superior 
products (Macintosh OS, Oracle, Linux, Alternate DOS providers) 
barely survive or are quashed, squeezed out, or bought out by 
Microsoft. They are a monopoly that hurts the industry. These are 
only a few of the issues.
    Please don't let Microsoft slip away. They need a reasonable 
punishment and organizational solution that will stop the abuses 
they have perpetrated and continue to perpetrate.
    Thanks for your time.
    Eric Weeks
    Salt Lake City, Utah



MTC-00027468

From: 
[email protected]@
inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft does not 
prohibit Microsoft from continuing the anti-competative practices 
that that have been described in the finding of fact, and does not 
include sufficient remedies that are in consumer's best interest. 
Computers are a mainsay in the home, business, and research 
environments, and will only become more important in the future for 
increasing the quality of life in the United States. Allowing 
Microsoft to use its dominance in the these markets to maintain its 
position and stifle or buy-out competition is harmful to consumers 
and the economy by setting up large barriers for innovative software 
products to enter the markets. A satisfactory settlement must 
address these issues and have measures to monitor and significantly 
penalize Microsoft in ways other than giving away software for 
continuing the illegal practices that have been determined in the 
finding of fact.
    Respectfully,
    Aaron Gruber
    Research Assistant
    Northwestern University
    2022 Colfax St Apt 2
    Evanston IL 60202



MTC-00027469

From: David Joham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:01am
    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. I have been a software developer working with Microsoft and 
its competitor's products for over ten years. During this time, I 
have personally witnessed many overt acts of anti-competitiveness by 
Microsoft that have directly harmed my clients. When Microsoft was 
found guilty of being a monopoly, I was optimistic that at last, 
this behavior would be ended.
    Much to my disappointment, the proposed settlement will do 
little to change the behavior of this monopolist in my situation.

[[Page 28030]]

Specifically, since my company is a small solution provider, section 
III.B allows Microsoft to continue their threats of retaliation if 
my company so much as hosts a training seminar with one of their 
competitors. While my situation may be viewed as an issue with a 
small group of Microsoft representatives, I believe that this small 
group accurately reflects the culture of the company at large. This 
culture has directly cost my clients many thousands of dollars and 
will continue to do them harm well into the future if the proposed 
remedy is allowed to stand. Specifically, the proposed remedy does 
little to prevent Microsoft from bringing harm to my company if I 
propose solutions to my clients that involve non-Microsoft software, 
even when this software is cheaper, more suited to their task and 
more appropriate to their situation. In addition to the above 
concerns, I believe that the proposed settlement has other serious 
flaws as well. However, I felt it best if I focused on how the 
settlement impacted me directly and let others speak about the more 
general aspects of the settlement.
    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.
    Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. If there 
is any more information that I may provide to you to help you in 
your deliberations, please feel free to contact me.
    Best regards,
    David Joham



MTC-00027470

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A single minded focus of a great company like Microsoft--to 
simplify the computing experience, and making IT affordable to a 
common man--has really been a path breaking achievement of the 
20th century. Any adverse judgement will only harm the end-consumer, 
who will be forced to cough up money for the most essential of 
features & innovations. Growth & well-being of Microsoft is 
essential to foster competition and health of IT industry not only 
in the US, but of the economy world-wide.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027471

From: George H. Darfus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:02am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Sirs:
    This E-mail is sent to urge you to hasten to a conclusion of the 
action against Microsoft. From what I have read on this matter, the 
tentative settlement which was reached some time ago seems like a 
reasonable approach.
    As a consumer, I can very strongly state that I have not been 
hurt by Microsoft. Their products have been easy to use and are 
certainly fairly priced. As I understand, this area of law is 
supposed to protect consumers. The only way I have been hurt is that 
way too many of my tax dollars have been used to prosecute a company 
which, in my opinion, did not deserve prosecution.
    Enough is enough. I thank you for taking the time to read my 
input.
    Very respectfully,
    George H. Darfus
    LCDR, USN (Ret.)



MTC-00027472

From: Barton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:03am
Subject:
From: Tina Barton--Dighton, KS
Attorney Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    While we appreciate all the work that has been put into the 
Microsoft antitrust case, I think America certainly can benefit from 
the settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. I understand that 30 
million dollars have been spent thus far on this case. Let's not 
spend any more.
    Please thoughtfully consider accepting this final judgment and 
end this antitrust case.
    Sincerely,
    Tina Barton



MTC-00027473

From: Aaron Nemetz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:08am
Subject: MIcrosoft Settlement
    Hello, I'm Aaron Nemetz, a student in eight-grade attending The 
Harker School. This as you presume is a letter about the recent 
cases on Microsoft. First I would like to talk about Judge Jackson's 
decision to split the company into many pieces. This for one is a 
horrible idea because it could lead to many monopolies, where each 
part will already have a huge user base, which seems to be very 
loyal to Microsoft's product. The company is like a worm, when you 
cut a worm in half trying to kill it the results are completely 
different. Over time there are two worms!! This is the effect that 
could possibly happen if this action was taken. Now for the recent 
case, where Microsoft is being tried upon the idea that they are 
breaking the Antitrust Laws by making a trust with Internet 
Explorer. This case can be taken many ways. One thing comes to mind 
is John D. Rockefeller, a businessman who monopolized the oil 
industry by the late 1800?s. His strategies were quit different; he 
would change prices in certain locations to run out the competition 
in those sites. That strategy was only used if other small companies 
didn?t agree to join him in monopolization by handing over all there 
refineries for some price. Looking over the history Rockefeller's 
Standard Oil Company one can conclude he used trusts, just like Bill 
Gates has done. Yet while Rockefeller's company joined with other 
companies in the industry, Bill Gates merged with software to only 
improve his own OP's efficiency and user-friendliness. Looking over 
the case I have a few more opinions. First as others believe this is 
yet another case started by AOL/Time Warner to slow down and make 
money off of Microsoft. One way I believe all Internet access 
companies can compete would be through rebates. Both Apple and 
Microsoft should come with a rebate, which would work on many of 
qualified Internet applications. This way competition would be 
restored once again. Even though the public does not seem to care 
too much about this monopoly I have thought of a simple plan that 
would replace interest in buying the best product.
    THANX,
    Aaron Nemetz



MTC-00027474

From: Tonitrus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not think the Microsoft settlement will help customers. Any 
reasonable solution must have ways for Windows programs to work on 
other Operating Systems, as Microsoft used its monopoly to get all 
of those programs over to the Windows platform. Also, the solution 
should allow users to choose what products they are purchasing, and 
not Microsoft. I personally believe that Microsoft should release 
the source code to Windows. This would allow the WINE (Wine Is Not 
an Emulator) project to fully emulated Windows, and allow Windows 
programs to run on anything that WINE itself will run on. This would 
also aptly punish Microsoft for its actions. The Windows source code 
should be put under the GNU Public License. This should be done for 
several reasons:
    If Microsoft released Windows source code, they would 
immediately go back and start the same process over again, so that 
their next version could be properly rigged. (Undocumented APIs, for 
example). The GNU license would allow anyone to take any good points 
that Windows might have (I don't really know of any), and 
incorporate them into better things. Also, if the Windows code was 
under the GPL, Microsoft would have to release the source code with 
every release of Windows.
    This would be the most effective way of shattering Microsoft's 
control of the OS market, and it would severely weaken them against 
their main competitor, Linux, which, due to the fact it lives off 
the GPL, would be able to appropriately absorb any necessary 
features that Windows could have. If the code were freely available, 
users would be able to decide for themselves what to get, by 
downloading the code, or getting it from a friend (legal under the 
GPL).
    This is the most effective way of breaking Microsoft's monopoly 
on the OS market. Not only should the code be made available, but it 
should be GPL'd. The effects of this are very useful, and beneficial 
to everyone, except, of course, Microsoft. Also, the insult of 
having their OS GPL'd would put the message across very clearly to 
them. excelsior,
    Dustan Bower
    315 Ladd rd.
    Fishersville, VA
    22939

[[Page 28031]]



MTC-00027475

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:03am
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,
    Ken Smith
    1223 Merry Brook Dr.
    Kalamazoo, MI 49048



MTC-00027476

From: Michael L. Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement ** Secret ** Hello,
    I would like to provide my comment on the settlement that the 
Justice Department has entered in with Microsoft. I believe that the 
settlement is quite adequate. If anymore were to be done it has a 
reverse effect of harming the consumer (me). I think it is time that 
this matter be settle and the allow Microsoft and the Justice 
Department move forward.
    Thank you
    Michael L. Mitchell
    Brandon, FL



MTC-00027477

From: James Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    The proposed settlement is NOT in the publich interest... it is 
ineffective and has large loopholes. My name is James Michael 
Carter. I am a real person working in the computer industry 
(programmer) who can tell story after story of microsoft abuses. I 
have followed and complained about Microsoft abuses since the early 
90's (before much of their behavior was successfully brought to the 
attention of anti-trust enforcers). (real person in contrast to 
Microsoft's fraudulant `astroturf'' fake citizen's 
responses which have been at least several times caught!) I am very 
much against the proposed settlement. It is not in the public 
interest. As a start, I advocate the changes proposed at: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html With further resources at: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/
    Also I echo Ralph Nader's criticisms: http://www.cptech.org/at/
ms/rnjl2kollarkoteltynov501.html
    To highlight some general problems, there are not protections 
for Non-MS operating systems to get hold of technical 
interoperability details and API's in order to build compatible and/
or competing products and systems. Further, MS should not be allowed 
to buy technology companies.., they absorb and kill off competition 
and gain beach-heads ensuring the next big thing will be in their 
controls--leveraged off their existing stranglehold and $36 
billion bank account. Profits they did not mine from the ground, but 
taken off the backs of consumers!! Microsoft yells how all they want 
to do is innovate and compete .... yet their behaviour and snubbing 
of the law and our courts show their words are as trustworthy as 
their products'' security. Make MS publish any and ALL API's, 
protocols, and file formats 3 months before any distribution so 
others may compete with them (as they profess to want).
    Prevent them from buying any other companies (to make them 
compete and --innovate-- as they claim they want to do. 
Make them publish all their source code.
    Microsoft wants to innovate-- and --compete-- ?? 
Well then make them do exactly that .... Microsoft's history shows 
they do all to NOT have to compete... So, let's finally make them do 
what they --CLAIM-- is all they want to do .... The public 
interest requires it.
    I also think microsoft should be broken up by product lines. 
Structural remedies are often only remedy to fix where company shows 
in its history to ignore consent decrees and have a penchant for not 
complying and for litigating (delaying until the damage is already 
done) (years and years now...).
    I am a modestly self-employed programmer, who has personally 
suffered and seen the abuses at the hands of Microsoft. Please don't 
let the average folks down.
    I would help you with new remedies or evaluation of such in any 
way I can. sincerely,
    James Carter
    221 Hosea Ave. Apt. 2
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45220
    (513) 559-9701
    [email protected]
    I attach for completeness the kegal analysis remedy fixes (which 
I endorse and propose as well):
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
On the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft 
Contents
Introduction
Understanding the Proposed Final Judgment
How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware'', 
and ``Windows OS'' be defined?
How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications Barrier to 
Entry?
How should the Final Judgment be enforced?
What information needs to be released to ISVs to encourage 
competition, and under what terms?
Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibited?
Which practices towards ISVs should be prohibited?
Which practices towards large users should be prohibited?
Which practices towards end users should be prohibited?
Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public interest?
Strengthening the PFJ
Correcting the PFJ's definitions
Release of Information
Prohibition of More Practices Toward OEMs
Summary
Introduction
    As a software engineer with 20 years'' experience 
developing software for Unix, Windows, Macintosh, and Linux, I'd 
like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. 
Microsoft.
    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).
    Attorney General John Ashcroft seems to agree; he called the 
proposed settlement ``strong and historic'', said that it 
would end ``Microsoft's unlawful conduct,'' and said 
``With the proposed settlement being announced today, the 
Department of Justice has fully and completely addressed the anti-
competitive conduct outlined by the Court of Appeals against 
Microsoft.''
    Yet the Proposed Final Judgment allows many exclusionary 
practices to continue, and does not take any direct measures to 
reduce the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by new entrants to 
the market. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft has a 
monopoly on Intel-compatible PC operating systems, and that the 
company's market position is protected by a substantial barrier to 
entry (p. 15). Furthermore, the Court of Appeals affirmed that 
Microsoft is liable under Sherman Act ? 2 for illegally maintaining 
its monopoly by imposing licensing restrictions on OEMs, IAPs 
(Internet Access Providers), ISVs (Independent Software Vendors), 
and Apple Computer, by requiring ISVs to switch to Microsoft's JVM 
(Java Virtual Machine), by deceiving Java developers, and by forcing 
Intel to drop support for cross-platform Java tools.
    The fruits of Microsoft's statutory violation include a 
strengthened Applications Barrier to Entry and weakened competition 
in the Intel-compatible operating system market; thus the Final 
Judgment must find a direct way of reducing the Applications Barrier 
to Entry, and of increasing such competition.
    In the following sections I outline the basic intent of the 
proposed final judgment, point out areas where the intent and the 
implementation appear to fall short, and propose amendments to the 
Proposed Final Judgment (or PFJ) to address these concerns.
    Please note that this document is still evolving. Feedback is 
welcome; to comment on this document, please join the mailing list 
at groups.yahoo.com/group/ms-remedy, or email me directly at dank-
[email protected].
    Understanding the Proposed Final Judgment In crafting the Final 
Judgment, the judge will face the following questions:

[[Page 28032]]

How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware'', 
and ``Windows OS'' be defined?
How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications Barrier to 
Entry?
How should the Final Judgment be enforced?
What information needs to be released to ISVs to encourage 
competition, and under what terms?
Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibited?
Which practices towards ISVs should be prohibited?
Which practices towards large users should be prohibited?
Which practices towards end users should be prohibited?
    Here is a very rough summary which paraphrases provisions III.A 
through III.J and VI. of the Proposed Final Judgment to give some 
idea of how the PFJ proposes to answer those questions: PFJ Section 
III: Prohibited Conduct
    Microsoft will not retaliate against OEMs who support 
competitors to Windows, Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), 
Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), or Outlook 
Express (OE). Microsoft will publish the wholesale prices it charges 
the top 20 OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) for Windows.
    Microsoft will allow OEMs to customize the Windows menus, 
desktop, and boot sequence, and will allow the use of non-Microsoft 
bootloaders.
    Microsoft will publish on MSDN (the Microsoft Developer Network) 
the APIs used by IE, MJ, WMP, WM, and OE, so that competing web 
browsers, media players, and email clients can plug in properly to 
Windows.
    Microsoft will license on reasonable terms the network protocols 
needed for non-Microsoft applications or operating systems to 
connect to Windows servers.
    Microsoft will not force business partners to refrain from 
supporting competitors to Windows, IE, MJ, WMP, WM, or OE. (Roughly 
same as F above.)
    Microsoft will let users and OEMs remove icons for IE, MJ, WMP, 
WM, and OE, and let them designate competing products to be used 
instead.
    Microsoft will license on reasonable terms any intellectual 
property rights needed for other companies to take advantage of the 
terms of this settlement.
    This agreement lets Microsoft keep secret anything having to do 
with security or copy protection.
    PFJ Section VI: Definitions
    ``API'' (Application Programming Interface) is defined 
as only the interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft 
Windows, excluding Windows APIs used by other application programs.
    ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' is defined as 
Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), Windows Media Player 
(WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook Express (OE).
    ``Windows Operating System Product'' is defined as 
Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, and Windows XP 
Professional.
    The agreement can be summed up in one breath as follows: 
Microsoft agrees to compete somewhat less vigorously, and to let 
competitors interoperate with Windows in exchange for royalty 
payments.
    Considering all of the above, one should read the detailed terms 
of the Proposed Final Judgment, and ask one final question:
    Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public interest?
    In the sections below, I'll look in more detail at how the PFJ 
deals with the above questions.
    How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware, and 
``Windows OS'' be defined?
    The definitions of various terms in Part VI of the PFJ differ 
from the definitions in the Findings of Fact and in common usage, 
apparently to Microsoft's benefit. Here are some examples:
    Definition A: ``API''
    The Findings of Fact (? 2) define ``API'' to mean the 
interfaces between application programs and the operating system. 
However, the PFJ's Definition A defines it to mean only the 
interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows, 
excluding Windows APIs used by other application programs. For 
instance, the PFJ's definition of API might omit important APIs such 
as the Microsoft Installer APIs which are used by installer programs 
to install software on Windows. Definition J: ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' The Findings of Fact (? 28) define 
``middleware'' to mean application software that itself 
presents a set of APIs which allow users to write new applications 
without reference to the underlying operating system.
    Definition J defines it in a much more restrictive way, and 
allows Microsoft to exclude any software from being covered by the 
definition in two ways:
    By changing product version numbers. For example, if the next 
version of Internet Explorer were named ``7.0.0'' instead 
of ``7'' or ``7.0'', it would not be deemed 
Microsoft Middleware by the PFJ. By changing how Microsoft 
distributes Windows or its middleware. For example, if Microsoft 
introduced a version of Windows which was only available via the 
Windows Update service, then nothing in that version of Windows 
would be considered Microsoft Middleware, regardless of whether 
Microsoft added it initially or in a later update. This is analogous 
to the loophole in the 1995 consent decree that allowed Microsoft to 
bundle its browser by integrating it into the operating system.
    Definition K: ``Microsoft Middleware Product''
    Definition K defines ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' 
to mean essentially Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), 
Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook 
Express (OE).
    The inclusion of Microsoft Java and not Microsoft.NET is 
questionable; Microsoft has essentially designated Microsoft.NET and 
C# as the successors to Java, so on that basis one would expect 
Microsoft.NET to be included in the definition.
    The inclusion of Outlook Express and not Outlook is 
questionable, as Outlook (different and more powerful than Outlook 
Express) is a more important product in business, and fits the 
definition of middleware better than Outlook Express.
    The exclusion of Microsoft Office is questionable, as many 
components of Microsoft Office fit the Finding of Fact's definition 
of middleware. For instance, there is an active market in software 
written to run on top of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Word, and 
many applications are developed for Microsoft Access by people who 
have no knowledge of Windows APIs.
    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. How should the Final 
Judgment erode the Applications Barrier to Entry?
    The PFJ tries to erode the Applications Barrier to Entry in two 
ways:
    By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who 
support or develop alternatives to Windows.
    By taking various measures to ensure that Windows allows the use 
of non-Microsoft middleware.
    A third option not provided by the PFJ would be to make sure 
that Microsoft raises no artificial barriers against non-Microsoft 
operating systems which implement the APIs needed to run application 
programs written for Windows. The Findings of Fact (?52) considered 
the possibility that competing operating systems could implement the 
Windows APIs and thereby directly run software written for Windows 
as a way of circumventing the Applications Barrier to Entry. This is 
in fact the route being taken by the Linux operating system, which 
includes middleware (named WINE) that can run many Windows programs.

[[Page 28033]]

    By not providing some aid for ISVs engaged in making Windows-
compatible operating systems, the PFJ is missing a key opportunity 
to encourage competition in the Intel-compatible operating system 
market. Worse yet, the PFJ itself, in sections III.D. and III.E., 
restricts information released by those sections to be used 
``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product''. This prohibits ISVs from using the 
information for the purpose of writing operating systems that 
interoperate with Windows programs.
    How should the Final Judgment be enforced?
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. It does provide for the creation of a 
Technical Committee with investigative powers, but appears to leave 
all actual enforcement to the legal system.
    What information needs to be released to ISVs to encourage 
competition, and under what terms?
    The PFJ provides for increased disclosure of technical 
information to ISVs, but these provisions are flawed in several 
ways:
    1. The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements Section III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors of 
competing middleware to meet ``reasonable technical 
requirements'' seven months before new releases of Windows, yet 
it does not require Microsoft to disclose those requirements in 
advance. This allows Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    2. API documentation is released too late to help ISVs
    Section III.D. of the PFJ requires Microsoft to release via MSDN 
or similar means the documentation for the APIs used by Microsoft 
Middleware Products to interoperate with Windows; release would be 
required at the time of the final beta test of the covered 
middleware, and whenever a new version of Windows is sent to 150,000 
beta testers. But this information would almost certainly not be 
released in time for competing middleware vendors to adapt their 
products to meet the requirements of section III.H.3, which states 
that competing middleware can be locked out if it fails to meet 
unspecified technical requirements seven months before the final 
beta test of a new version of Windows.
    3. Many important APIs would remain undocumented The PFJ's 
overly narrow definitions of ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product'' and ``API'' means that Section III.D.'s 
requirement to release information about Windows interfaces would 
not cover many important interfaces.
    4. Unreasonable Restrictions are Placed on the Use of the 
Released Documentation
    ISVs writing competing operating systems as outlined in Findings 
of Fact (?52) sometimes have difficulty understanding various 
undocumented Windows APIs. The information released under section 
III.D. of the PFJ would aid those ISVs--except that the PFJ 
disallows this use of the information. Worse yet, to avoid running 
afoul of the PFJ, ISVs might need to divide up their engineers into 
two groups: those who refer to MSDN and work on Windows-only 
applications; and those who cannot refer to MSDN because they work 
on applications which also run on non-Microsoft operating systems. 
This would constitute retaliation against ISVs who support competing 
operating systems.
    MSNBC has a valid interest in prohibiting use of pirated copies 
of operating systems, but much narrower language could achieve the 
same protective effect with less anticompetitive impact. For 
instance, ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install 
and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running 
validly licensed copies of Microsoft Windows or compatible operating 
system.''
    2. Microsoft created intentional incompatibilities in Windows 
3.1 to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating systems An 
episode from the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit 
illustrates how Microsoft has used technical means 
anticompetitively. Microsoft's original operating system was called 
MS-DOS. Programs used the DOS API to call up the services of the 
operating system. Digital Research offered a competing operating 
system, DR-DOS, that also implemented the DOS API, and could run 
programs written for MS-DOS. Windows 3.1 and earlier were not 
operating systems per se, but rather middleware that used the DOS 
API to interoperate with the operating system. Microsoft was 
concerned with the competitive threat posed by DR-DOS, and added 
code to beta copies of Windows 3.1 so it would display spurious and 
misleading error messages when run on DR-DOS. Digital Research's 
successor company, Caldera, brought a private antitrust suit against 
Microsoft in 1996. (See the original complaint, and Caldera's 
consolidated response to Microsoft's motions for partial summary 
judgment.) The judge in the case ruled that ``Caldera has 
presented sufficient evidence that the incompatibilities alleged 
were part of an anticompetitive scheme by Microsoft.'' That 
case was settled out of court in 1999, and no court has fully 
explored the alleged conduct.
    The concern here is that, as competing operating systems emerge 
which are able to run Windows applications, Microsoft might try to 
sabotage Windows applications, middleware, and development tools so 
that they cannot run on non-Microsoft operating systems, just as 
they did earlier with Windows 3.1.
    The PFJ as currently written does nothing to prohibit these 
kinds of restrictive licenses and intentional incompatibilities, and 
thus encourages Microsoft to use these techniques to enhance the 
Applications Barrier to Entry, and harming those consumers who use 
non-Microsoft operating systems and wish to use Microsoft 
applications software. Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public 
interest? The problems identified above with the Proposed Final 
Judgment can be summarized as follows:
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating 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 or Free Software 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

[[Page 28034]]

`white box'' OEMs which are historically the most willing 
to install competing operating systems--who ship competing 
software.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to 
OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC 
systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Considering these problems, one must conclude that the Proposed 
Final Judgment as written allows and encourages significant 
anticompetitive practices to continue, and would delay the emergence 
of competing Windows-compatible operating systems. Therefore, the 
Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest, and should 
not be adopted without addressing these issues.
    Strengthening the PFJ
    The above discussion shows that the PFJ does not satisfy the 
Court of Appeals'' mandate. Some of the plaintiff States have 
proposed an alternate settlement which fixes many of the problems 
identified above. The States'' proposal is quite different from 
the PFJ as a whole, but it contains many elements which are similar 
to elements of the PFJ, with small yet crucial changes.
    In the sections below, I suggest amendments to the PFJ that 
attempt to resolve some of the demonstrated problems (time pressure 
has prevented anything like a complete list of amendments). When 
discussing amendments, PFJ text is shown indented; removed text in 
shown in [bracketed strikeout], and new text in bold italics.
    Correcting the PFJ's definitions
    Definition A should be amended to read
    A. ``Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)'' means 
the interfaces, including any associated callback interfaces, that 
[Microsoft Middleware running] ,Popular Windows Applications running 
or being installed on a Windows Operating System Product [uses] use 
to call upon that Windows Operating System Product in order to 
obtain any services from that Windows Operating System Product.
    Definition U should be amended to read
    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. ] any software or firmware code 
distributed commercially by Microsoft that is capable of executing 
any nontrivial 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. Four 
new definitions should be added:
    V. ``Popular Windows Applications'' shall be defined 
as as the top 10 selling applications as reported by NPD Intelect 
Market Tracking in each of the categories Business, Education, 
Finance, Games, Personal Productivity, and Reference, plus all 
Microsoft Middleware Products.
    W. ``Essential Windows API Patents'' shall be defined 
as those patents held by Microsoft which cover Essential Windows 
APIs, such that those APIs cannot possibly be implemented without 
infringing upon said patents.
    X. ``Essential Windows APIs Standard Definition'' 
shall be defined as a document, suitable for approval by a standards 
body such as ECMA or IEEE, which accurately defines the inputs, 
outputs, and behavior of each Essential Windows API, and enumerates 
any Essential Windows API Patents.
    Y. ``Essential Windows APIs Standard Compliance Test 
Suite'' shall be defined as software source code which, when 
compiled and run, automatically tests an operating system for 
compliance with the Essential Windows APIs Standard Definition, and 
outputs a list of each API which fails to comply with the Essential 
Windows APIs Standard Definition. The test suite should run 
unattended; that is, it should be capable of running without human 
interaction or supervision.
    Release of Information
    Section E should be amended to remove the restriction on the use 
of the disclosed information:
    ... Microsoft shall disclose ... [for the sole purpose of 
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product,] for the 
purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product or 
with application software written for Windows,
    Because any new competitor in the Intel-compatible operating 
system must be able to run Windows applications to have a chance in 
the market, and because Microsoft has traditionally used 
undocumented Windows APIs as part of the Applications Barrier to 
Entry, the Final Judgment should provide explicitly for a clear 
definition of what APIs a competing operating system must provide to 
run Windows applications. The best way to do this is by submitting 
the API definitions to a standards body. This was done in 1994 for 
the Windows 3.1 APIs (see Sun's 1994 press release about WABI 2.0 
and the Public Windows Initiative). The result is Standard ECMA-234: 
Application Programming Interface for Windows (APIW), which provides 
standard definitions for an essential subset (four hundred and 
fourty-four out of the roughly one thousand) of the Windows 3.1 
APIs; it was rendered mostly obsolete by the switch to Windows 95. 
The Final Judgment should provide for the creation of something like 
ECMA-234 for the various modern versions of Windows. Because 
Microsoft currently claims that it has intellectual property rights 
that protect the Windows APIs, but has never spelled out exactly 
which patents cover which APIs, the Final Judgment should force this 
to be spelled out.
    A new section IV.E should be created to achieve the above goals 
by adding the following text:
    E. Establishment of a Windows API Standards Expert Group Within 
60 days of entry of this Final Judgment, the parties shall create 
and recommend to the Court for its appointment a six person Windows 
API Standards Expert Group (``WASEG'') to manage the 
creation, publication, and maintenance of an Essential Windows APIs 
Standard Definition, and to guide it through the process of being 
adopted by a standards body such as ECMA or the IEEE.
    Three of the WASEG members shall be experts in software design 
and programming, and three of the WASEG members shall be experts in 
intellectual property law. No WASEG 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 
WASEG member shall have entered into any non-disclosure agreement 
that is still in force with Microsoft or any competitor to 
Microsoft, nor shall she or he enter into such an agreement during 
her or his term on the WASEG. Without limitation to the foregoing, 
no WASEG member 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 WASEG.
    Within seven days of entry of this Final Judgment, the 
Plaintiffs as a group shall select two software experts and two 
intellectual property law experts to be members of the WASEG, and 
Microsoft shall select one software expert and one intellectual 
property law expert to be members of the WASEG; the Plaintiffs shall 
then apply to the Court for appointment of the persons selected by 
the Plaintiffs and Microsoft pursuant to this section.
    Each WASEG member shall serve for an initial term of 30 months. 
At the end of a WASEG member's initial 30-month term, the party that 
originally selected him or her may, in its sole discretion, either 
request re-appointment by the Court to a second 30-month term or 
replace the WASEG member in the same manner as provided for above.
    If the United States or a majority of the Plaintiffs determine 
that a member of the WASEG has failed to act diligently and 
consistently with the purposes of this Final Judgment, or if a 
member of the WASEG resigns, or for any other reason ceases to serve 
in his or her capacity as a member of the WASEG, the person or 
persons that originally selected the WASEG member shall select a 
replacement member in the same manner as provided for above.
    Promptly after appointment of the WASEG by the Court, the United 
States shall enter into a Windows API Expert Group services 
agreement (''WASEG Services Agreement'') with each WASEG 
member that grants the rights, powers and authorities necessary to 
permit the WASEG to perform its duties under this Final Judgment. 
Microsoft shall indemnify each WASEG 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 WASEG's duties, except

[[Page 28035]]

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 WASEG member. The WASEG Services 
Agreements shall include the following:
    The WASEG members shall serve, without bond or other security, 
at the cost and expense of Microsoft on such terms and conditions as 
the Plaintiffs approve, including the payment of reasonable fees and 
expenses. The WASEG Services Agreement shall provide that each 
member of the WASEG shall comply with the limitations provided for 
in section IV.E.2. above. Microsoft shall provide the WASEG with 
funds needed to procure office space, telephone, other office 
support facilities, consultants, or contractors required by the 
WASEG.
    The WASEG shall not have direct access to any part of 
Microsoft's computer software source code that is not normally 
available to all ISV's. The WASEG shall not enter into any non-
disclosure agreements with Microsoft or third parties. No 
implementations of any Windows APIs shall be written or published by 
the WASEG.
    The WASEG shall have the following powers and duties:
    The WASEG may require Microsoft to provide comprehensive answers 
to questions about Microsoft intellectual property claims.
    The WASEG may require Microsoft to provide comprehensive answers 
to questions about the inputs, outputs, and functionality of any 
Windows API; in particular, the WASEG may compel Microsoft to 
provide complete documentation for Windows APIs, including hitherto 
undocumented or poorly-documented Windows APIs.
    The WASEG may engage, at the cost and expense of Microsoft, the 
services of outside consultants and contractors as required to 
fulfill the duties of the WASEG.
    The WASEG shall establish a publicly available web site not 
owned or otherwise controlled by Microsoft, and will publish status 
reports and other information there at least as often as once per 
month. Documentation on the web site shall be made available subject 
to the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; test suite 
source code made available on the web site shall be made available 
subject to the terms of the GNU General Public License.
    The WASEG shall compile a complete list of Windows APIs, 
including for each API the DLL name, entry point name, entry point 
ordinal number, return value type, and parameter types, as well as 
which versions of Windows it is supported by and what percentage of 
Popular Windows Applications use it. The WASEG shall publish this 
list on the WASEG web site subject to the GNU Free Documentation 
License, according to the following schedule: Within 90 days after 
the WASEG is convened, the WASEG shall publish this information for 
at least three hundred Windows APIs. On the 1st of each month 
thereafter, the WASEG shall publish this information for another 
three hundred Windows APIs. This shall continue until a complete 
list of Windows APIs is available on the web site. The WASEG shall 
use tools such as Apius from Sarion Systems Research to verify that 
the list of Windows APIs is indeed complete, and that installing or 
running any Popular Windows Application does not cause any unlisted 
Windows API to be invoked.
    The WASEG shall compile a complete list of Essential Windows API 
patents and patents pending, and an evaluation of which Windows APIs 
each patent covers. The WASEG shall compile this information by 
asking Microsoft for a complete list of Essential Windows API 
patents and patents pending, and then determining which Windows APIs 
are likely to be covered by each patent or patent pending; the WASEG 
shall use the World Wide Web Consortium's document www.w3.org/TR/
2002/NOTE-patent-practice-20020124 as guidance. The WASEG shall 
publish this information on the WASEG web site subject to the GNU 
Free Documentation License, according to the following schedule: 
Within 90 days after the WASEG is convened, the WASEG shall publish 
an evaluation of 30 patents. On the 1st of each month thereafter, 
the WASEG shall publish an evaluation of another 30 patents. This 
shall continue until evaluations of all patents claimed by Microsoft 
to cover the Windows APIs have been published on the WASEG web site.
    The WASEG shall compile documentation for the list of Windows 
APIs defined above in section IV.E.9.e, including a complete 
description of the meanings of the return values and parameters, and 
the effects of the API. The documentation should be composed in a 
style similar to that used for the Single Unix Specification 
documentation ( http://www. UNIX-systems.org/go/unix). Within 180 
days after the WASEG is convened, and on the 1st of every month 
thereafter until complete, the WASEG will make available the 
currently completed portion of this documentation via its web site.
    When the three documents described above--the list of 
Windows APIs, the list of Essential Windows Patents, and the 
documentation for the listed Windows APIs--is complete, the 
WASEG shall undertake to submit them to a standards body such as 
ECMA or the IEEE as a Public Windows APIs Standard Document, and to 
make such enhancements and revisions as needed to gain the 
acceptance of that document as a standard.
    The WASEG shall create an Essential Windows APIs Standard 
Compliance Test Suite, and publish it on the WASEG web site subject 
to the GNU General Public License, according to the following 
schedule: Within 180 days after the WASEG is convened, the WASEG 
shall publish test cases for at least fifty Windows APIs. On the 1st 
of each month thereafter, the WASEG shall publish test cases for at 
least another fifty Windows APIs. This shall continue until a 
complete Essential Windows APIs Standard Compliance Test Suite is 
available on the web site. In the event that a planned update to 
Windows or any other Microsoft product is expected to result in the 
creation of new Windows APIs, the WASEG shall create addenda to the 
above documents and test suite covering the new APIs, make them 
available via its web site, and undertake to submit them to the same 
standards body as above as an addendum to the standard.
    Prohibition of More Practices Toward OEMs
    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 ...
    Summary
    This document demonstrates that there are so many problems with 
the PFJ that it is not in the public interest. It also illustrates 
how one might try to fix some of these problems. Dan Kegel



MTC-00027479

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:08am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Hello,
    While I am in agreement with your settlement of the Microsoft 
debacle, please encourage other states to be involved with this 
settlement.
    At no time was this ever a consumer problem. The problem lies 
solely with competitors who could not keep up with the innovations 
of Microsoft. Everyone in the United States of America has the 
opportunity to be creative and to build any type of business. When 
the government decides to break apart companies because you listen 
to the ear of the incompetent competitors, you weaken the creative 
business spirit of our great country. It is time your issues with 
Microsoft be over.
    I am a shareholder of Microsoft and have great respect for this 
company. Mr. Gates did not live off the banks as most companies seem 
to do but built this company by his innovations and creativity. You 
would do much better in the protection of the little people, like 
me, by taking care of businesses like the cable companies, which we 
have no choices, and Enron.
    Thank you for listening to one of the ``little 
people'' of this country.
    SANDY



MTC-00027480

From: Stephanie Bricker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:09am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    To whom this may concern:
    The federal court has reviewed the Microsoft antitrust case and 
found that Microsoft has repeatedly violated U.S. antitrust laws and 
should be liable for its illegal conduct. Microsoft seeks to 
heighten its power and control in the world, in an effort to squash 
competitors, it seeks to merge with other companies and therefore 
install Internet Explorer as the default operating system in 
connection with Windows. This will lessen the use of netscape. 
However, many people favor netscape and this step by Microsoft will 
only inconvenience such users and create disfavor towards Microsoft. 
I urge you to hold Microsoft accountable for its actions not allow 
for such monopolies to take place. In addition, Microsoft should not 
be

[[Page 28036]]

able to attach other products or services, especially items that do 
not even have anything to do with operating a computer.
    Furthermore, the economy needs competition. It is the 
fundamental aspect in the economy. Please allow for the continuation 
of technological competition because it is essential in economic 
survival and the satisfaction of consumers.
    Thank you for your time,
    Stephanie Bricker



MTC-00027481

From: Michael Batchelder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:09am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the proposed 
settlement in the case of US v. Microsoft. As an information 
technology professional, I have personally witnessed Microsoft's 
policies restricting consumer choice (my own, w/regard to purchasing 
computers without Windows operating systems), failing to provide 
quality service (for which increased competition should be the 
solution), and limiting, rather than encouraging innovation.
    Should the Department of Justice choose to move forward with the 
proposed settlement, I will take it as compelling evidence that the 
Bush administration is clearly a government ``for large 
corporate interests, by large corporate interests, and of large 
corporate interests'', at the expense of the peoples'' 
interest.
    Thank you,
    Michael Batchelder
    Redwood City, CA



MTC-00027483

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:09am
Subject: my opinion
    I'm writing to express my opinion on the antitrust case against 
Microsoft. What must be taken into account is how much Microsoft has 
given the world. Not only technology, but jobs, products, entire 
industries. Microsoft revolutionized personal computers in a way 
that has improved the lives of most everyone I know. The 
simplification of personal computing has made it possible for any 
one of any age and background to utilize technology. Why must 
Microsoft be punished for success? There is no logic to that. Human 
beings evolve and make improvements not because they are being 
``fair'' ... technology and business are not polite 
playground play. It benefits no one to punish Microsoft for success. 
It benefits us all to encourage achievement. Microsoft would not be 
seen as threatening if it had not earned the undeniable excellence 
with the consumer, creating standards in the industry that were 
challenging to stay abreast of. Competition is the healthiest 
motivater; it keeps us all reaching higher and higher, improving and 
strengthening and evolving. If we punish success, we endanger our 
very evolution.



MTC-00027484

From: whij0@nodots-daemon@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    PURPOSE: This document is respectfully submitted as public 
comment on the Proposed Final Judgement in United States v. 
Microsoft pursuant to the Tunney Act.
    QUALIFICATIONS: The author has technical and managerial 
experience in Information Technology covering large mainframe to 
Unix mid-range to PC systems extending over more than three decades. 
This experience has been in private industry but also includes part-
time involvement in independent consulting and providing advice for 
friends. The author holds the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer 
(MCSE) certification.
    SUMMARY: In its current form, the Proposed Final Judgement fails 
every remedy objective provided by The Supreme Court. Therefore, it 
should be rejected and stringent interim conduct restrictions 
applied.
    DISCUSSION: Microsoft was tried and found guilty of violating 
sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The findings were 
upheld under appeal. The current task is to determine appropriate 
remedies. In 391 U.S. 244, The Supreme Court provided criteria for 
the remedies in antitrust cases: ``It is of course established 
that, in a 2 case, upon appropriate findings of violation, it is the 
duty of the court to prescribe relief which will terminate the 
illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to 
result in monopolization in the future. . . . The trial court is 
charged with inescapable responsibility to achieve this objective . 
. . .''
    First, let me acknowledge my disappointment at the loss of 
structural remedies. Microsoft has been extremely innovative with 
interpreting conduct restrictions in the past (Civil Action No. 
94-1564, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f1300/1329.htm). Given 
such past behavior, only an extremely tight and well designed (both 
technically and legally) document only containing conduct 
restrictions will be effective.
    The structure of the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) is as 
follows:
    I. Jurisdiction
    II. Applicability
    III. Prohibited Conduct
    IV. Compliance and Enforcement Procedures
    V. Termination
    VI. Definitions
    VII. Further Elements
    VIII. Third Party Rights
    Nowhere does the PFJ address ``deny to the defendant the 
fruits of its statutory violation.'' Although section III 
discusses conduct restrictions, there is no language to 
``terminate the illegal monopoly'' and ensure no 
``monopolization in the future''. Rather, the current PFJ 
serves to acknowledge, strengthen and continue the monopoly. Section 
III, A deals with not retaliating against OEMS. Starting with 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;''
    Conspicuous by its absence is considering the possibility of 
shipping a Personal Computer with only one non-Microsoft Operating 
System or no Operating System at all. Even more interesting to note 
is the last paragraph: ``Nothing in this provision shall 
prohibit Microsoft from providing Consideration to any OEM with 
respect to any Microsoft product or service where that Consideration 
is commensurate with the absolute level or amount of that OEM's 
development, distribution, promotion, or licensing of that Microsoft 
product or service.''
    Although retaliation is prohibited, this paragraph provides the 
necessary loophole by allowing selective Consideration. This appears 
to be a variation on the theme of vendors providing a cash discount 
when they were prohibited from applying a credit card surcharge. In 
both cases the same result is achieved.
    The open source initiative has been a nemesis to Microsoft. 
Unlike, a traditional profit oriented business, the usual tactics 
haven't worked to eradicate them. The design of the PFJ appears to 
be geared to assist in this objective starting with the explicitly 
named list of commercial type organizations in section III, D. An 
explicitly named list inherently excludes anything not listed. This 
is further emphasized in III, J, 2, b-d: ``(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 . . .''
    Open source initiatives tend to be non-commercial projects whose 
source code results are freely published on the Internet. They 
clearly fail b) and c) since they do not have traditional business 
plans. They could not afford d), which is unnecessary anyway, since 
the source code is readily available. The references to RAND 
(reasonable and non-discriminatory) licenses (the subject of serious 
debate in the W3C standards approval process) fall in this same 
category. The open source initiatives could all be rendered obsolete 
merely by selectively changing the APIs to be incompatible with the 
current ones and leveraging the PFJ and the DMCA to prevent access 
to the information necessary to attain compatibility. In one easy 
move, the open source problem is eliminated with a release change. 
This could spell the end of projects such as WINE (a project to run 
Windows applications on non-Windows Operating Systems) and Samba (a 
project to provide Windows type file and print services on 
non--Windows Operating Systems and to connect to Windows hosted 
file and print services from non--Windows Operating Systems).
    The PFJ is fraught with loopholes. This document discusses just 
a few. CONCLUSION: The general tone of the PFJ merely acknowledges 
that Microsoft is a monopolist rather than serving to 
``terminate the illegal monopoly'' and ensure no 
``monopolization in the future'' as well as not addressing 
``deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation.'' The PFJ in its

[[Page 28037]]

current form is grossly inadequate. A major overhaul is required to 
meet the stipulated criteria. The court should reject it.
    Should the current PFJ be adopted, no business would attempt to 
compete with Microsoft in any area Microsoft has an interest. Should 
anyone be foolish enough to do so, there would be no external 
funding available due to the enormous risk of failure. This document 
will not serve to restore competition.
    Given Microsoft's past behavior, significant interim conduct 
restrictions should be applied to temper future damage pending the 
probable lengthy resolution of this matter.
    SIGNATURE:
    James R Whitten
    Overland Park, KS
    [email protected]



MTC-00027485

From: jbarney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:10am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am a small business owner. Ten years ago my business had to 
cobble together a variety of software programs in order to operate 
my business because one program would not talk to another program. 
To do so was very expensive and time consuming.These are the very 
companies that are suing Microsoft. Along came Microsoft and tied it 
all together, and did so at a reasonable price. These other 
companies are just whining because they still don't have the ability 
to come up with a workable system. Their is no antitrust case 
against Microsoft. Nobody has been hurt. Quite the contrary, 
Microsoft has made life a lot easier for most of us. It is just a 
political charade. Quit spending taxpayer money, throw the case out. 
and get on with life.
    Jack Barney



MTC-00027486

From: Bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Below please find a copy of an original post I made to Slashdot 
11/2/2001 about Microsoft and the nature of the problem their 
behavior represents to the computing industry. You may read it 
directly here http://slashdot.org/
comments.pl'sid=23317&cid=2513826 but I have chosen to reproduce 
it here for you immediate use.
    I feel that this analogy is very fair- operating systems ARE 
essentially program utilities that handle the allocation of system 
resources, and so competing against a company that is both your 
competitor and the power company puts that company in a position 
from whence a trust can arise ( and has in the case of Microsoft). A 
breakup as envisioned by the original judge or a source code release 
free of limitations other then not being able to use the code for OS 
sales would be appropriate remedies.
    I truly hope that you listen to myself and other computer 
professionals, and stand ready to explain my position and 
conclusions with anyone from the DOJ or any other government officer 
in order to facilitate a return to a balanced, competitive and 
useful software market environment. I can be reached via this email 
address or at home, 972-437-6795.
    Imagine if your local power company was a conglomerate that 
could also compete with your toaster maker company.
    Microsoft Power & Light decides to change the voltages to 
everybody's home every three years, requiring a complete change to 
all the appliances and home systems. This suits you fine as it 
drives more toaster sales, so while you question the ethical 
validity of these changes, the havoc it creates and the incredible 
costs it imposes on the community, the business model is there- you 
are on board.
    MSP&L tries to enter into the toaster market, but they can't 
make a toaster as good as you. You think all you have to do is 
continue to make a better toaster- you poor deluded fool.
    MSP&L approaches you and says hey we will force all the 
homeowners to have a specific plug and voltage for toasters, sign up 
with us and we can guarantee you your share of the toaster market 
and we'll get our share. You don't dare refuse because the implied 
threat is that the proprietary toaster plug can be used to lock you 
out just as easily as lock you in. The consumers go along because 
you set the quality standards and if you are on board it must be an 
okay plug standard, and besides those malfunctioning MSP&L 
toasters are mighty cheap. Now all of a sudden you are a 
``strategic business partner'', desperately hoping that 
MSP&L or an appliance giant will buy you out.
    MSP&L has locked you into a standard under their control, 
but now some MS VP genius decides that toasters are strategic (it's 
not an appliance, it's ad-revenue!). They mess with the voltages 
every year so your toasters malfunction and their toasters work 
until you spend valuable design and retool time ``fixing'' 
your toaster. They create SmarToaster technology that sends email 
recipes to their toasters to enhance the toaster experience and 
incidentally deliver ads, actually their real revenue stream in the 
toaster market. The convection/microwave people are destroying your 
upper-end toaster market, so you are totally squeezed. Then to 
finish you off, MSP&L gives toasters (which they finally have 
kind of working) to everyone during the next voltage change.
    You are done for.
    But hey our government is here for you! The DoJ comes by and 
says, gosh that's wrong, MSP&L cannot use their power monopoly 
to squash the toaster market, MSP&L play nice. MSP&L agrees, 
then builds the NeToaster standard that requires you to use a 
certified bread or pastry and you can't remove the ads.
    ActiveOvenLife cries out for justice because they can't impose 
their own toaster standard on all the households. Now the DoJ says 
okay MSP&L, play nicer. Don't you feel good ex-toaster guy?
    Hmmmm, maybe you should have lobbied for standard electricity 
settings instead of letting greed get to you, treated the power 
company as a monopoly utility and allowed everyone to build the best 
appliances that compete on their merits. Open source electricity 
standards and government-regulated power? That's just wacky and 
unAmerican!
    The truly frightening thing is that if Microsoft continues to 
get away with this, the rest of the corporate world will follow suit 
and we will end up with crazy costs, financial and personal, in all 
sorts of real life situations like the above.
    The excellent railroads, electricity, roads and 
telecommunications infrastructure that all Americans enjoy did not 
happen by accident. It was a combination of visionaries, greedy 
people and governmental community laws that gave us industries and 
standards that work.
    If the Microsoft culture is allowed to dominate computing, then 
we will experience what our forefathers avoided by stopping railroad 
magnates or Standard Oil from controlling the lifeblood of our 
nation. God help us if we have failed to learn those lessons.



MTC-00027487

From: Keith Beavers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion Microsoft has demonstrated much good faith in 
effort to finish this matter. The same doesn't seem to be true of 
the competition.
    Sincerely,
    Keith Beavers



MTC-00027488

From: Dave Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    While there are good aspects of the Proposed Final Judgement 
(PFJ), I will concentrate instead on the issues that need 
correcting. In addition to these comments, I agree with Dan Kegel's 
open letter and essay ``On the Proposed Final Judgment in 
United States v. Microsoft''. He has invested a great deal of 
effort into systematically identifying the flaws in the PFJ and in 
designing suggested corrections. I was surprised to find that:
    --The proposal does not even address the issue of Microsoft 
intentionally designing into their operating system roadblocks to 
Non-Microsoft operating system developers for the purpose of 
maintaining their monopoly.
    --The proposal provides definitions of Microsoft's current 
and future products that are too narrow. Briefly, the definition of 
``API'' is succeptible to version number modifications and 
the definition of ``Middleware'' is succeptible to 
distribution method modifications. For example, the PFJ would not 
cover Microsoft's software that is distributed via Windows Update. 
This is a serious loophole.
    --The proposal neglects to address the release of file 
formats for ``popular'' office

[[Page 28038]]

productivity software. This is a critical aspect of Microsoft's 
monopoly power as it provides leverage for excluding Non-Microsoft 
operating systems just as do its tactics regarding Internet 
Explorer. Office productivity applications have become a very 
important feature of operating systems, and non-disclosure of office 
application file formats prevents other operating systems from 
providing compatibility with Microsoft office applications, and, of 
course, Microsoft's office applications are not capable of running 
on any but a select few operating systems. This constructs a 
prohibitive sacrafice that is necessary for switching to Non-
Microsoft operating systems because the end user's office 
application documents cannot be converted to formats that are usable 
by the Non-Microsoft operating system. All intellectual and time-
related investments in such documents would be lost if an end user 
chose to switch to another operating system. As a result, Non-
Microsoft operating systems become less commercially viable. 
Undocumented file formats have already been found to strengthen 
Microsoft's Applications Barrier to Entry in the ``Findings of 
Fact'' paragraphs 20 and 39. This issue should not be ignored 
by the Final Judgement.
    --Only forcing Microsoft to disclose its pricing schedule 
to the top 20 customers is wholly inadequate, for it neglects 
protection of all other customers, especially those who are not as 
powerful as the top 20.
    --Many people are confused and frustrated that the Free 
Software Movement issues relating to Microsoft's abuses are not 
addressed by this PFJ.
    For example, forcing Microsoft to ``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.'' (The 
Proposed Final Judgement) does nothing to prevent witholding or 
implementation of technical information from developers of efforts 
toward operating systems that provide Microsoft operating system 
functionality for non-Microsoft operating systems. An example of 
such a project is WINE. In addition, it is rather alarming to find 
that many aspects of the proposal do not explicitly allow private 
developers who are creating products for Non-Microsoft operating 
systems to implement the technical information mentioned. How is the 
restriction to businesses and organizations justified? Why are the 
secret patents held by Microsoft not addressed by this Proposed 
Final Judgement? There are many other issues with the Proposed Final 
Judgement that I have not discussed here. Please refer to Dan 
Kegel's essay, ``On the Proposed Final Judgment in United 
States v. Microsoft'', for a more thorough description of the 
problems and their solutions. While some of these points may not be 
an immediate concern to some, they must be covered in the judgement 
because: ``... as is indicated by the record in this case, 
Microsoft can and does take advantage of any loopholes in contracts 
to create barriers to competition and enhance and extend its 
monopoly power.'' (Ralph Nader and James Love, 2001) Is this 
what the USDOJ intends to allow?
    Please, let's have a geniune effort at disciplining Microsoft.
    Thank-you.
    David W. Kennedy
    Student
    Engineering, Computer-Science
    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    References:
    Dan Kegel's Open Letter to DOJ Re: The Microsoft Settlement
    URL: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Ralph Nader and James Love, November 5, 2001, ``RE: US v. 
Microsoft proposed final order''
    URL: http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html



MTC-00027489

From: jwjptw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I would recommend that the DOJ stop any further action against 
Microsoft and accept the settlement. I have been involved with 
computers for 24 years and decided long ago it made sense to go with 
Microsoft products beginning with MS-DOS. They have developed good 
products with excellent support and training. They have empowered 
the home computer user to expand his vision and utilize tools that 
previously were beyond his expectations and without effort to learn 
programming in order to achieve immediate success. Microsoft has 
done more to advance human knowledge and productivity than any 
single corporation has in the technical age. Many of the plaintiffs 
exhibit greed and envy in their comments and actions while trying to 
get the government to grievously impair a competitor when their 
primary damage is to their egos.
    The attorneys in the federal government, states, and some 
individual corporations have used this venue to enhance their own 
public images, which is such a waste of public money. You have a 
settlement; take it and get on to matters that are more important.
    Thank you,
    Jack Jenkins



MTC-00027490

From: Michael Capehart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea, and will only serve to let 
Microsoft off with a slap on the wrist for destroying any real 
chance for competition in the computer software industry. Stop them 
now, because you will not get another chance.
    Mike Capehart
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00027491

From: Rosemary Loven
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 1:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rosemary Loven
P.O. Box 385
Bishop, CA 93515-0385
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall 
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more 
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share 
my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rosemary Loven



MTC-00027492

From: Kevin P. Rice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Kevin Rice. I live in Bellevue, Washington, and work 
as a business analyst. As part of my work, I use many of Microsoft's 
products, including Microsoft Windows NT and Microsoft Office 97. I 
consider myself to be a power user and build sophisticated documents 
with Microsoft Excel and Access that include procedures written 
using built in macro language for Office, Visual Basic for 
Applications. At home, I use an Apple Macintosh and Microsoft Office 
98, so I am familiar with multiple computer operating systems.
    The Revised Proposed Final Judgement as currently structured 
does not meet the public interest. The proposed penalties are 
inadequate given Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior as outlined in 
the Findings of Fact, and Microsoft has too much influence over 
enforcement through the Technical Committee. The current competitive 
situation in the computer industry and its impact on consumers 
requires tougher, enforceable penalties.
    According to the Findings of Fact, Microsoft has engaged in 
anticompetitive business behavior. It is important that there be 
punishment for this behavior; without adequate punishment, Microsoft 
has no

[[Page 28039]]

incentive to discontinue and alter the behavior deemed 
anticompetitive by the courts. Microsoft could easily defend itself 
against complaints using the legal system, while small businesses 
with innovative products beneficial to the consumer would have no 
practical recourse, even in the courts, if they were the victims of 
any anticompetitive practice by Microsoft. The Final Judgement in 
Civil Action 94-1564 prohibits Microsoft from entering 
``into any License Agreement that by its terms prohibits or 
restricts the OEM's licensing, sale or distribution of any non-
Microsoft Operating System Software product.'' Also, Microsoft 
cannot enter into an agreement with an OEM that prohibits the OEM 
from ``licensing, purchasing, using or distributing any non-
Microsoft product.'' According to the Findings of Fact, 
Microsoft has already violated the prohibitions in the Final 
Judgement by not allowing OEMs to install their own tutorial 
software to their computers'' boot sequence. This prevented 
OEMs from offering a useful benefit to consumers. Microsoft also 
violated the spirit of the Final Judgement by not allowing OEMs to 
delete the Internet Explorer icon from the Windows desktop; this 
discouraged OEMs from putting an alternative browser on the desktop 
because it would be confusing to consumers. Given this behavior, 
stricter remedies would be appropriate. However the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgement does little more than restate the prohibited 
behavior of the previous Final Judgement using more precise language 
updated to reflect the current industry environment. This will not 
prevent Microsoft from altering their behavior in ways that may (or 
may not) be in compliance but would still be anticompetitive, 
requiring more legal action and prolonging harm to consumers. The 
language in the RPFJ also does nothing to penalize Microsoft for 
illegal behavior. This will make the prohibitions in the RPFJ more 
difficult to enforce, since violations of the prior Final Judgement 
resulted in no significant penalty to Microsoft.
    The RPFJ calls for the establishment of a Technical Committee, 
with one member chosen by Microsoft and another member that the 
Microsoft-chosen TC member must agree to. Given that Microsoft has 
been ``found guilty'' of anticompetitive monopoly 
maintenance, they have too much influence over the makeup of the TC. 
The selection process for the Technical Committee is analogous to 
giving an accused murderer the ability to choose some of the jurors 
for his trial. A better alternative would be to give Microsoft 
limited veto ability similar to a jury selection process, with 
members randomly selected from a pool of candidates that meet the 
qualifications outlined in the RPFJ.
    The current Revised Proposed Final Judgement does not improve 
the competitive environment in the computer industry and does not 
benefit consumers or the public interest. Because of the lack of 
serious alternatives to Microsoft products, consumers pay more for 
those products in extra time spent resolving defects in Microsoft 
software.
    These defects range from bugs that interfere with the desired 
use of computer software to vulnerabilities to viruses such as 
Melissa, Code Red, and Nimda. In addition there may be an unknown 
number of potential innovations in computer hardware or software 
that will not be made available to consumers because of fear of 
anticompetitive business practices by Microsoft. Netscape is but one 
example of what can currently happen to a business with an 
innovative product in conflict with Microsoft's business goals. 
Therefore, it is critical that any settlement or other remedy of 
this case effectively curbs Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior.



MTC-00027493

From: Brian Leair
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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.
    I am a professional software developer. I develope commercial 
software that runs on the Windows plaftorm in addition to several 
unix platforms.
    I believe that there are several significant failures of the 
proposed settlement.
    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.
    III.J.2 Exceptions
    This section specifically excludes many software developers 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 independent developers from the 
benefits of these remedies.
    There are several specific damages that consumers may suffer if 
a stronger settlement isn't reached
    Microsoft can use it's API barriers to make it so costly for 
competitors to enter a market space the consumer will be given only 
ONE current viable option. Namely the option created by microsoft.
    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,
    Brian D. Leair of OPNET Technologies



MTC-00027494

From: Alice Kvasnak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:21am
Subject: Attorney Geneeral John Ashcroft:
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Recent events have led to a settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I am pleased this settlement was reached because it 
means Microsoft will be able to finally focus on software and not 
the courts. I trust you will support this settlement.
    Forces that hold an anti-Microsoft agenda are trying to derail 
this agreement and have Microsoft dragged back to court. They desire 
a harsher conclusion to this case, one that will be injurous to 
Microsoft. They prefer to compete with Microsoft in the courts, and 
not in the real world.
    Ironically this settlement will be good for Microsoft's 
competitors,yet most still oppose it. Because the settlement exposes 
Microsoft's code, competitors will be able to create better software 
and make it work better on Microsoft's operating systems. We must 
not punish Microsoft for it's success;we should settle this conflict 
now.
    Sincerely''
    Alice Kvasnak
    4802 Ponte Vedra
    Otter Creek Lane
    Beach,Fl.32082



MTC-00027495

From: Bob Bainbridge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I worked for IBM Corporation for 40 years and during that time 
saw many abuses by Microsoft Corporation. I saw the IBM PC Co., a 
division of IBM, become so fearful of Microsoft's abusive power that 
they refused to preload IBM's own operating system, OS/2, on 
customer machines. Microsoft threatened to withhold Windows 
shipments to IBM which would have virtually put the IBM PC Co. out 
of business. This was back when Bill Gates saw OS/2 as a real threat 
to his WIndows system. They also charged IBM higher prices for 
Windows than other competitors. I saw them make a minor upgrade from 
Windows 3.1 to 3.11 that suddenly caused all Windows programs to no 
longer run under OS/2. IBM then had to patch OS/2 to allow the 
Windows programs to run. They finally reached the point where IBM 
knew they were chasing a moving target and froze the WIndows code at 
that point. Because of this most newer WIndows programs will not run 
under OS/2. I saw other companies, like Gateway, pressured by 
Microsoft to the point that they would not preload OS/2 and would 
not support it if a customer called with a problem. Only in Europe, 
where Bill Gates didn't have as much clout, did OS/2 flourish. At 
the time of my retirement in 2000, IBM was still using OS/2 to run 
most of the mainframe consoles since IBM mainframe customers 
wouldn't tolerate the flakiness of Windows. By gaining a monopoly 
Microsoft has been able to push untested and unstable software 
products onto their customers and then charge them for the upgrades 
to fix the problems as in Windows Second Edition. The DOJ settlement 
has let Microsoft off with a ``smack on the hand'' and is 
much too light of a punishment. ONly after a large financial penalty 
will they change their arrogant ways.

[[Page 28040]]

    Robert P. Bainbridge
    41867 Debra Dr.
    Elyria, OH 44035-1131
    [email protected]



MTC-00027496

From: Benson Chow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has tried hard to squash all competition. And it has 
succeeded. One specific example is how the company's product, 
Internet Explorer, has quickly reached the top. Now with so many 
users, and them putting in proprietary extensions that nobody knows 
except Microsoft, it essentially makes Netscape and other browser 
users crash or render pages incorrectly-- thus forcing us to 
use their product if we wish to obtain their content. This is 
totally unacceptable, we have a right to choose what product to use 
to view content. This is like having only one brand of TV available. 
Imagine having to watch news where you *must* buy a specific brand 
of TV, else it won't work. The same thing has happened to Operating 
Systems and Office Applications. I agree with the ruling that 
Microsoft has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.
    I do however have a complaint about the proposed remedy. 
Microsoft wants to donate millions of dollars worth of goods to 
needy schools. This sounds very good on the surface, we are helping 
our the most disadvantaged children.
    Now the problem is, it does not solve the problem we have ruled 
against. Those millions of dollars worth of ``goods'' they 
want to be Microsoft goods. Now we are going to be feeding these 
Microsoft goods to the children. They will grow up thinking 
Microsoft is the only thing available, and will continue to buy 
Microsoft software. Have we done anything? No--we have made the 
problem WORSE. We need to bring different choices to our children in 
order to guide them that there is more than Microsoft.
    Many possible other solutions are possible. While it would be 
nice to allow companies that were destroyed by Microsoft to be 
rejuvinated, this is short of impossible. Or perhaps a rebate to all 
purchasers of Microsoft software. No, this is not good either, it 
does not help the problem. We need to do something that makes a 
difference--A charitable donation is a good start. But it needs 
to show choice. Perhaps they must purchase machines and software 
from their remaining competitors for their settlement. Perhaps they 
should open up their standards to allow competitors to once again 
compete. It's a tough call, destroying a powerful company is never a 
good thing, but a virtual, ``cyber monarchy'' could be 
formed and Microsoft at its head, with the current settlement as it 
stands today.
    I am a Linux user. I would like to see things such as them 
complete the following at an unspecified percentage and split:
-Open up Internet/application/operating standards they have created 
to allow competitors to design competing products.
    I would like to see projects like Netscape, Caldera Office, and 
WINE to get big breaks from the settlement.
-Purchase computers for schools for the same amount, but use 
competitor software or buy more computers and use open-source, or 
free software.
    I do not necessarily want to see a breakup of the company. They 
will still hold a monopoly on their respective business units.
    Thank you for reading this. I hope this will encourage you to 
reconsider the settlement and let users and thousands like me to 
enjoy content the way we want to, instead of how Microsoft wants to.
    -bc



MTC-00027497

From: The L1 Ranger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    ``Leave Microsoft Alone''/
    -The L1 Ranger!



MTC-00027498

From: Javier L. Madrid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    Now is the time to preempt the further spread of Microsoft's 
plans to expand their ill-gotten monoply. The company that started 
by offering products to make computing easier for non-programmers 
has reached a point of diminishing returns for those same people. 
For a number of years now their efforts have been focussed more on 
the protection of their revenue stream ( you and I) than on true 
innovation. Not only have they been bereft of innovative products 
but have hired away from academia and their rivals truly innovative 
thinkers thus preventing the fruits of their scientific labor 
benefiting their competitors. From my vantage point from within the 
Tech Industry I feel that this unapologetic and arrogant company 
that has grown so huge in its pervasiveness in every day life must 
be dealt with in a truly historic harsh fashion. As they have dealt 
brutally from a business perspective with those perceived as even 
remotely competitive whether it be a single person or a company so 
they too must now be taken to task.
    These are my recommendations:
    (1) They are not to be allowed to expand to ANY new technical 
markets for 10 years either by partnership or funding or purchasing 
of companies or rights to technology.
    (2) Levy a 10 billion dollar penalty against the company and 
only accept CASH, and not spread over 5 or 10 years of installments. 
Use the money to help fix our educational system.
    (3) They must open the entire set of Windows APIs and file 
formats now and in the future to truly foster competition and 
innovation. Your Honor, it is key that this company not be allowed 
to ``embrace and extend'' their monoply.
    Their true intentions are not so much about producing good 
products as it is about preserving at all costs a regular tithing 
from you and I.
    Your Honor, it is time for you to ``think outside the 
box''.



MTC-00027499

From: Douglas Gray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I am concerned that the proposed settlement does not adequately 
address a number of issues in connection with the case (as outlined 
in the open letter by Dan Kegel of kegel.com), and believe that 
competition would be harmed by the adoption of the settlement, i.e. 
that the settlement is NOT in the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas Gray
    Postgraduate Researcher
    University of California San Diego
    San Diego CA



MTC-00027500

From: Brad Harvell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.
    Thank you for counting me.



MTC-00027501

From: Michael J. Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Honorable Court:
    I have read and cosigned the Open Letter to DOJ Re: Microsoft 
Settlement written by Dan Kegal, and I am writing to further express 
my opinion of the Proposed Final Judgement in the United States v. 
Microso case. I believe that the Proposed Final Judgement should not 
go through the way it is. I am aware that the Department of Justice 
concluded that Microsoft has engaged in monopolistic behaviors and 
that Microsoft has used its position of power to prevent 
competition. However, this main problem still has not been addressed 
fully. Under the settlement as it currenly is written, Microsoft 
would essentially be able to continue its anti-competitive practices 
merely by altering some of its company procedures.
    I believe that Microsoft should be required to publish 
documentation of its APIs for uninhibited use by developers of 
alternative software systems. This will serve to reduce the 
``appications barrier to entry,'' allowing developers of 
competing products to add compatability for existing standards. 
This, in turn, allows those developers to make a successful entry 
into the software market, thus promoting competition.
    I also contend that Microsoft should be disallowed to certify 
hardware devices as ``designed for Windows,'' unless the 
specifications of those devices are released to the public. 
Consumers don't want to use an operating system that doesn't support 
their hardware. Maintaining secret hardware specifications hinders 
the development of free operating systems that run on a wide range 
of hardware.
    In conclusion, I believe that the Proposed Final Judgement is 
not good enough and is in need of revision. The revisions should 
ensure that Microsoft cannot resume actions

[[Page 28041]]

that are anti-competitive and that are not in the public interest. 
Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J. Kennedy
    Champaign, IL
    Computer Science Student
    University of Illinois



MTC-00027502

     From:[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please consider the merits of the settlement for the good of the 
U.S. economy and our technology industry. They are reasonable and 
fair to all parties, and meet ? or go beyond-- the ruling by 
the Court of Appeals, and represent the best opportunity for the 
industry to move forward.
    Jim Bishop
    Marietta, GA
    678.523.3912



MTC-00027503

From: Benson Chow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Appended contact information.
    Microsoft has tried hard to squash all competition. And it has 
succeeded. One specific example is how the company's product, 
Internet Explorer, has quickly reached the top. Now with so many 
users, and them putting in proprietary extensions that nobody knows 
except Microsoft, it essentially makes Netscape and other browser 
users crash or render pages incorrectly-- thus forcing us to 
use their product if we wish to obtain their content.
    This is totally unacceptable, we have a right to choose what 
product to use to view content. This is like having only one brand 
of TV available. Imagine having to watch news where you *must* buy a 
specific brand of TV, else it won't work. The same thing has 
happened to Operating Systems and Office Applications. I agree with 
the ruling that Microsoft has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.
    I do however have a complaint about the proposed remedy. 
Microsoft wants to donate millions of dollars worth of goods to 
needy schools. This sounds very good on the surface, we are helping 
our the most disadvantaged children.
    Now the problem is, it does not solve the problem we have ruled 
against. Those millions of dollars worth of ``goods'' they 
want to be Microsoft goods. Now we are going to be feeding these 
Microsoft goods to the children. They will grow up thinking 
Microsoft is the only thing available, and will continue to buy 
Microsoft software. Have we done anything? No--we have made the 
problem WORSE. We need to bring different choices to our children in 
order to guide them that there is more than Microsoft.
    Many possible other solutions are possible. While it would be 
nice to allow companies that were destroyed by Microsoft to be 
rejuvinated, this is short of impossible. Or perhaps a rebate to all 
purchasers of Microsoft software. No, this is not good either, it 
does not help the problem. We need to do something that makes a 
difference--A charitable donation is a good start. But it needs 
to show choice. Perhaps they must purchase machines and software 
from their remaining competitors for their settlement. Perhaps they 
should open up their standards to allow competitors to once again 
compete. It's a tough call, destroying a powerful company is never a 
good thing, but a virtual, ``cyber monarchy'' could be 
formed and Microsoft at its head, with the current settlement as it 
stands today.
    I am a Linux user. I would like to see things such as them 
complete the following at an unspecified percentage and split: 
--Open up Internet/application/operating standards they have 
created to allow competitors to design competing products.
    I would like to see projects like Netscape, Caldera Office, and 
WINE to get big breaks from the settlement. --Purchase 
computers for schools for the same amount, but use competitor 
software or buy more computers and use open-source, or free 
software. I do not necessarily want to see a breakup of the company. 
They will still hold a monopoly on their respective business units. 
Thank you for reading this. I hope this will encourage you to 
reconsider the settlement and let users and thousands like me to 
enjoy content the way we want to, instead of how Microsoft wants to.
--bc
    Benson Chow, [email protected]
    3500 Granada Avenue
    Santa Clara, CA 95051
    408-569-2132



MTC-00027504

From: Jessica Kohagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:38am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    I am writing as both a concerned college student and as a 
concerned consumer. I truly believe that open competition in every 
market promotes better quality and utilizes all the available 
resources. I fear that the demand for engineers in computer-related 
fields will decrease significantly if Microsoft's competition is 
restricted or eliminated. In addition, the development of computer-
related technology maybe be slowed if companies aren't trying to 
``get an edge'' over one another. Keeping unrestricted 
competition will ensure state-of-the-art technology and quality 
products for the consumer as well as job openings and possible 
entrepreneurships for those currently in the industry as well as 
those who will be entering it within a few years.
    Sincerely,
    Jessica Kohagen
    Pardee Tower #612
    614 W. 35th Pl.
    Los Angeles, CA 90089
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027505

From: Cody Ashe-McNalley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear United States'' Department of Justice,
    I am writing to urge the government not to seek any settlement 
which allows Microsoft to continue the anti-competitive, anti-
consumer business practices that it has used, still uses today, and 
openly plans to continue to use. I have spent my entire professional 
life working in the fields of information technology and software 
development. Microsoft has had an unfairly taxing effect on every 
aspect of the industry I have experience in.
    While certainly not all, I believe the following two issues are 
the primary obstacles in dealing with the Microsoft monopoly: One, 
their use of proprietary, undocumented, and ever-changing file 
formats, application program interfaces (APIs), and security 
authentication methods; two, the draconian and unlawful enforcement 
of licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers 
(OEMs).
    The first issue, proprietary file formats, has hindered me 
personally, and has undoubtedly affected every citizen of the United 
States who has used Microsoft Office products. As consumers desire 
more access to the Internet and multimedia files, this problem will 
only increase. As it is, there is already a huge deficiency in the 
basic functionality of Microsoft products on the Apple Macintosh 
operating system.
    The second issue, unlawful licensing agreements with OEMs, is 
analogous to the system of rebates that allowed John D. 
Rockefeller's Standard Oil to maintain a monopoly in the oil 
industry. There is effectively no point of entry for competition in 
the market for small business and consumer computing goods in the 
United States. This has become an indirect tax on every consumer 
purchasing a personal computer. However, this has probably hurt the 
small businesses of America most of all. Business today depends on 
computers, and they have no choice but to become Microsoft 
customers. Their success depends on Microsoft from their very 
inception.
    The United States has had enough success controlling anti-
competitive monopolies to still offer an environment full of 
opportunity for its citizens, both as consumers and business people. 
I greatly hope that the United States Department of Justice can 
persevere in restoring that environment for the twenty-first 
century.
    Sincerely,
    Cody Ashe-McNalley
    11700L National Blvd. #103
    Los Angeles, CA 90064



MTC-00027506

From: Steve Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's competitors would have you believe that they are 
pure innocents that have been grossly wronged by the ``evil 
empire''. In many ways, Microsoft competitors are no better 
than Enron in their execution of modem business ethics. Much of the 
anti-trust complaint reads as if the government and judicial were 
brain dead. It's difficult to understand how highly educated 
attorney's can be so ignorant of the principles of debate, however, 
it's not fallacy of logic that's on

[[Page 28042]]

their minds, but how to get maximum mileage from legal loop-holes. 
Here's my opinion on the entire anti-trust case:
    The government's anti-trust suit has been no benefit to the 
consumer. It has primarily provided fuel for ambulance chasers. 
Anti-trust concepts, over 100 years old, are being used as a 
loophole to accomplish political and business goals that were not 
the original intention of anti-trust.
    Software is neither a limited resource nor is it controlled by 
any single individual or company. The government has ignored the 
Apple, HP, Sun, et.al., which are monopolies in the computer 
workstation industry. Their proprietary software will only work on 
their proprietary hardware. As a result, huge promises have been 
made, but innovation has been nil, and prices are exorbitant. This 
has hurt businesses large and small. Consumers have been hurt by 
high prices being passed through in the goods and products produced 
by all American industries.
    This is far worse than the telephone monopoly, which has not 
been stricken with the greedy intentions of Sun and Netscape/AOL-
Time Warner. Cell phone makers have not sued traditional telephone 
company monopolies, instead, they have created an original new 
product that offers the consumer something new and that they are 
willing to pay over twice the cost to own. Government tolerance of 
airline fare and automotive gasoline price monopolies has also hurt 
consumers significantly and shows a pattern of abuse that has the 
look and feel of corruption. The government has relented to 
political pressure from politicians and greedy CEO's that have 
prevented the passage of many updated and revised laws that could 
prevent them from being used with corrupt intentions.
    The PC revolution has allowed anyone to own a high performance 
computer. The monopolistic workstation vendors have lost billions 
from their market that went from 860,000 professional workstations 
to $10,000 PC systems. To say that these companies have a grudge 
against Microsoft is a gross understatement. The consumer, the 
American economy and the world in general can be thankful of 
Microsoft's effort to innovate and advance PC technology. They are 
by no means the only company to do so, but in no way should they be 
destroyed by two greedy individuals and an industry that was getting 
rich by stealing millions from consumers instead of competing in the 
market place.
    In contrast, Microsoft has made it possible for everyone to own 
and operate a computer at extremely competitive prices. It is 
blasphemy that Sun or other companies and state Attorney General's 
suggest that Microsoft has over-charged consumers. It's also 
interesting to note that if Microsoft had lower prices, they would 
have been accused of trying to run their competition out of business 
by flooding the market with cheap software. There simply is no safe 
strategy to avoid the egregious actions of those who insist on 
perverting anti-trust laws to their own financial and political 
gain.
    There are many reasons why Microsoft was the choice of consumers 
and became dominate in the PC software market, but it is very likely 
primarily due to their far superior product than the gross 
incompetence of their competition. Consumers have been damaged and 
angered so much by proprietary and incompetent software that it's no 
wonder they have no tolerance for incompatible, proprietary systems. 
The majority of consumers and their businesses have used a loud and 
clear voice in the market place to tell Apple, Linux, BeOs, and 
others that they dislike their business model of high prices and 
proprietary design.
    In drastic contrast, Microsoft's products are compatible with 
thousands of other successful software products on the market today. 
In fact, one company that claimed in a congressional hearing that 
Microsoft disabled their software was totally embarrassed by private 
independent testing labs that proved otherwise. In no way has 
Microsoft's competitors played fair and their current abuse of anti-
trust law is a distortion of reality.
    It is also interesting that the judge and companies that warned 
that the proposed settlement involving distribution of Microsoft 
software to many poor schools districts would put Apple's monopoly 
at a disadvantage. They are certainly not unaware that schools are 
under siege from American businesses that want PC's in the schools, 
so they don't have to re-train all the students. It costs billions 
of dollars that are passed through to consumers, to train, maintain 
and update computer software in every business in this country 
today. The waste would be monumental if each company had to maintain 
multiple computer systems and they know this to be an irrefutable 
fact from past experience. This is just one of the many forces that 
has created the Microsoft monopoly. Microsoft's only part was to 
provide the best possible software, but they were entrapped by anti-
trust terrorists while trying to keep people from stealing their 
software, In contrast, Netscape has tried to bully their way into a 
tiny segment of the operating system market by offering a product 
that is a niche element of the basic operating system. One of the 
primary functions of an operating system is to connect the central 
processing unit (CPU) with the internal and external hardware 
attached to the computer. The Internet is merely an extension of the 
basic computer network and nothing more.
    The need for a special browser to access the Internet is only a 
viable marketing concept if it significantly improves that concept 
or offers consumers significant value. Netscape has done neither. In 
fact their market share is far larger than they want you to know, 
since many users are still using old versions. This is because their 
newer version 6.0 was very poorly written and there really isn't 
much else that a browser can do other than be a simple path to the 
Internet where content that neither Microsoft nor Netscape control 
is the desirable goal of the consumer.
    It is well documented in the press that Netscape version 6.0 was 
such a failure and performed so poorly that is was soundly panned by 
the experts and most advised against upgrading. Microsoft's 
dominance again is shown to be due to superior competence and based 
on merit, while their competition had abdicated their responsibility 
to deliver a quality product to the consumer. Netscape's loss of 
market share is primarily due to their lack of innovation and their 
product simply does not provide any value to the consumer.
    Claims that Microsoft wants to control the Internet are a good 
example of fundamental misconceptions and the high level of miss-
information in the anti-trust suit. Web site owners are responsible 
for the content on their sites and there are no technical, political 
or legal barriers to web content other than federal and state 
statutes, which apply equally to everyone.
    Likewise, consumers have determined what browser they prefer. 
The majority of consumers want nothing to do with Netscape and they 
have good reasons for that decision since compatibility, reliability 
and security are far more important than the marketing hype and 
illusionary benefits and features of any browser. The alleged damage 
and losses experienced by Netscape primarily exist in the minds of 
their attorneys and nowhere else; certainly not in the minds of 
consumers.
    Whether Microsoft is a monopoly or not has nothing to do with 
the success of Netscape. Consumers must have an operating system for 
their computers and the CPU must communicate with internal, external 
and network drives (servers). The Internet is simply the extension 
of the basic computer system hardware. Netscape's loss of market is 
due to their own incompetence and nothing else.
    Steven M. Black
    1916 Camas Court SE
    Renton, WA 98055-4501
    01/31/2002 7:20 F



MTC-00027507

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
    Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon 
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little 
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft 
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by 
Microsoft: the computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic 
industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Christian Kulczytzky
    807 Rennard Street
    Philadelphai, PA 19116



MTC-00027508

From: Ken Kundert

[[Page 28043]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is clear to me that the DOJ caved in to intense lobbying 
pressure when it agreed to the current settlement. That is the only 
way to explain it. Anybody that has paid any attention to 
Microsoft's behavior of the last decade knows that this settlement 
will have no significant impact on Microsoft. They will ignore it 
like they ignored both the law and the restrictions that they agreed 
to in the past. Furthermore, I do not believe that they would have 
been offered this settlement had they not improperly influenced both 
the Executive Branch and our law makers. Giving Microsoft this 
settlement shows the people of the United States and the world that 
justice in America does not apply to the very wealthy.
    It is my sincere hope that the original spirit of the Tunney act 
is followed. If so, I confident that it will come out that Microsoft 
was able to buy a very favorable settlement. At the very least, I 
hope that you reject the DOJ settlement and go with the settlement 
proposal of the 9 dissident states. Better yet, I hope you return to 
the idea of breaking up Microsoft. I have been involved in the 
software industry for 20 years, though I have never been directly or 
indirectly employed by either Microsoft or its competitors, and I 
can say with great confidence that Microsoft, with its monopoly 
position, has slowed the progress of the computer industry by at 
least 10 years. The cost of not having competitors to its buggy and 
insecure software has been vast. Breaking up Microsoft will be the 
best thing for consumers.
    Ken Kundert



MTC-00027509

From: Richard Probst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:45am
Subject: comments on proposed Microsoft settlement
    I am writing to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I 
believe the settlement is deeply inadequate, and should be rejected 
by the Court, for the following five reasons:
    (1) The settlement provides no protection for all but the 
largest Microsoft competitors. It prevents Microsoft from blocking 
what is referred to as ``middleware'', but only if the 
provider of the middleware has sold a million copies of the 
application and has been in business for over a year. Thus, AOL, 
Kodak, and Real Networks are protected from Microsoft's monopoly 
power, but not the smaller and younger firms that are the true 
source of innovation. Instead, the settlement should prevent 
Microsoft from blocking middleware from the desktop, no matter who 
provides the middleware. Only with this provision will consumers 
benefit from unchecked innovation.
    (2) The settlement allows Microsoft to prevent its licensees 
from placing non-Microsoft icons on the desktop, unless the icon 
competes with a Microsoft product. Microsoft should have no control 
over what icons its licensees can place on the desktop. As written, 
the settlement could allow Microsoft to block the availability of an 
innovative application until Microsoft had completed its own 
competitive offering, thus eliminating any early-to-market benefit 
to the application inventor.
    (3) The settlement does not require Microsoft to publish its 
APIs until the ``final beta'' release. This is much too 
late to allow another firm to develop or modify an application to 
use a new API before Microsoft officially launches the new release. 
This means that Microsoft can control which applications work with a 
new release of an operating system at the time of the release, which 
gives Microsoft power to limit innovation by its competitors. 
Instead, Microsoft should be required to publish APIs earlier in the 
history of a release (6 months before commercial availability is a 
reasonable requirement), and to publish timely updates if the APIs 
change before the ``final beta'' release.
    (4) The settlement requires firms that use the APIs published 
under the terms of the settlement to give Microsoft the code which 
they wrote to use the APIs. Under no circumstances should Microsoft 
have the right to code developed by its competitors. This provision 
of the settlement actually rewards Microsoft with a competitive 
advantage, which is an ironic and inappropriate response to illegal 
monopolistic behavior.
    (5) The settlement does not prevent Microsoft from structuring 
discounts to punish its licensees who work with Microsoft 
competitors. It also allows Microsoft to terminate a licensing 
agreement without prior notice--which could prevent a hardware 
vendor from delivering a new computer model on schedule (for 
example, in time for the Christmas selling season). If the 
termination is determined not to have been legal under the terms of 
the settlement, Microsoft will be forced to reinstate the license, 
but the hardware vendor may already have been irreparably damaged. 
Instead, the settlement should require Microsoft to get prior 
approval for license terminations and changes in discounts.
    These and other flaws in the proposed settlement have led me to 
wonder if Microsoft's own lawyers drafted some of the terms. The 
settlement is not a sufficient punishment and will not prevent 
further monopolistic behavior.
    The Court should reject the proposed settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Probst 
CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027510

From: Lindsay Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I don't think that the PFJ is the correct solution to this 
problem. Microsoft is a fabulous company, however, they are in 
direct violation to the law. They are guilty of some very serious 
anti-competitive violations. The PFJ does not provide an effective 
enforcement mechanism. What microsoft has done to many companies is 
very wrong and needs to be stopped. It is not fair. The world needs 
competition.
    Thanks
    Lindsay Ray 213-764-3843
    CC:[email protected]@i
netgw



MTC-00027511

From: Carnese, Dan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:47am
Subject: Re: comment on proposed Microsoft settlement
    This is a correction to a comment submitted earlier this 
evening.
From: Dan Carnese
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 8:36 PM
Subject: comment on proposed Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft has repeatedly shown bad faith in dealing with 
software companies.
    I believe the only effective way to prevent it from future 
violations is to prevent those violations from being in its 
interest.
    Dividing Microsoft into an operating systems company and an 
applications company is the only way to have this happen without 
onerous and unworkable review by an external entity of Microsoft's 
business activities.
    As a Microsoft stockholder, I believe this is the best way to 
preserve and increase shareholder value, while having the company 
behave in a lawful and ethical manner.
    Dan Carnese
    560 Lakeview Way
    Redwood City, CA 94062



MTC-00027512

From: kevins@indepth-
tech.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    I whole heartedly support the proposed settlement agreement in 
U.S. v. Microsoft. While no settlement is likely to please all, this 
settlement has well thought out, purposeful remedies that will 
encourage technical innovation and market competition. It is time to 
accept the fair remedies of the settlement and allow the industry to 
concentrate on creating the new computing products that will create 
jobs and stimulate the economy.
    Kevin Schuler
    President
    InDepth Technology
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027513

From: Jim White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    This my public comment under the Tunney Act.
    I am OPPOSED to the revised proposed Final Judgement to resolve 
the United States'' civil antitrust case against Microsoft as 
it currently is formulated (11/06/2001).
    The proposed remedies are entirely inadequate to resolve ongoing 
anti-competitive practices by Microsoft with regard to the 
development and marketing of software competing with the Windows 
Operating System. Of particular importance is that no provision is 
made to prevent

[[Page 28044]]

Microsoft's efforts to subvert the development and distribution of 
free and open software that competes with Windows. Microsoft is 
using its many entangling End User License Agreements for both its 
applications (such Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office, etc) and 
SDKs (software development kits, necessary in many cases for 
practical development of applications to be used with or to compete 
with Windows) to REQUIRE that the End User to only use the 
application software on a Microsoft licensed operating system. This 
is blatant product tying to the monopoly Windows OS with the direct 
consequence of preventing the distribution of legal competing 
products.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Signed,
    James White
    Software Consulant
    Laguna Hills, CA



MTC-00027514

From: Deepak Shah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:50am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
January 27, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE & EMAIL
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Sir/Madame, The Microsoft settlement proposed by the 
Justice Department should not be approved by the court. It does not 
adequately prevent Microsoft from abusing its monopoly powers. It is 
also a poor solution in that it will be complicated to enforce and 
Microsoft will have economic incentive to try to circumvent the 
agreement.
    No doubt, there are precise legal standards that the court must 
follow in reviewing the settlement and making its decision. As a 
layman, I cannot hope to address the intricate legal issues as to 
what is explicitly mandated by statute and precedence--I can 
only speak in broad terms. My background is that of an engineer 
(M.S. in EECS) with 20 years of experience using PC software at work 
and at home and that of a founder and officer of a small software 
development company. I comment mostly from the perspective of an end 
user of PC software products.
    As a businessman, I have had substantial experience negotiating, 
implementing, and litigating business agreements. I have found that 
the best agreements are those that (1) align the economic interest 
of the two parties (i.e. there is no economic benefit to either 
party to try to circumvent the agreement) and (2) are simple. The 
proposed settlement agreement is neither. As one example, the 
language in the agreement requires Microsoft to provide access to 
certain information only to viable business entities. In paragraph 
III(J)(2)(c) , the proposed settlement states that Microsoft will 
not be required to provide API's or Documentation to an entity that 
fails to meet ?reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business.? Arguably, this language could allow Microsoft to exclude 
access to small businesses, start-ups, and Linux developers (or 
other non-profit type software developers) if it was in Microsoft's 
economic interest to do so.
    For a second example, the proposed settlement requires Microsoft 
not to automatically override OEM settings. Paragraph III(H) (3) (b) 
says Microsoft must not seek permission from the end user for 
?[automatic] alteration of the OEM's configuration until 14 days 
after the initial boot up of a new Personal Computer.? What does the 
agreement mean by initial bootup? Strictly speaking, ?initial 
bootup? could be interpreted to mean the first time the unit is 
turned on by the manufacture or the local retailer (for testing 
& verification purposes) and not the first time the end user 
turns on the machine. (As an aside, why does Microsoft need to be 
able to automatically override any settings? It should be sufficient 
to notify the user in the manual or on-line help that the user can 
change his settings by selecting the proper options in his 
application program or Windows operating system.) If such a simple 
item is this complicated to interpret and enforce, what does it 
augur for the rest of the agreement?
    While it may not be the perfect solution, separating Microsoft 
into two independent companies meets the criteria stated above for a 
good business agreement. One, a breakup is simple, once it is 
completed, it is done--there is no agreement to interpret. Two, 
a breakup eliminates any economic incentive for Microsoft to 
circumvent an agreement because there is no agreement to circumvent 
once the breakup is completed.
    My strong feelings about this case arise because I constantly 
find I have no real choice in my selection of PC operating systems 
and applications. As much as Microsoft's legal counsel and 
economists may argue about the user having choices and being better 
off, I find from my personal experience, that I am not.
    If I am unhappy with my GM car, I can easily switch with my next 
purchase to a Toyota, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, etc. at zero cost. If I 
dislike my Sony television, I can buy a Zenith, JVC, Philips, or 
Panasonic, etc. without constraint. Nowadays, I have the freedom to 
switch phone service or my television reception from cable to 
satellite. Even with my PC, I can switch from Dell to IBM, Compaq, 
HP or others. But, I cannot switch from my use of the Microsoft 
operating system or Microsoft applications without cost. so 
substantial as to be prohibitive.
    On the surface it may appear that there are alternatives to 
Microsoft's operating systems and applications. However, there are 
six barriers which effectively prevent me from using a competitor's 
product. First, because of Microsoft's market dominance, there is 
far more support from other vendors for Microsoft's products. For 
example, an application program or peripheral such as a printer may 
not be supported under either the Apple or Linux operating systems. 
Other vendor's import/export utilities, synchronization functions or 
the like may only support dominant Microsoft applications such as 
Word or Excel. Similarly, web sites may be designed to function best 
with Microsoft Internet Explorer as compared to competing products.
    As a concrete example, consider my brother's experience with the 
Apple Imac. My brother's children learned to use the Imac growing up 
because of its superior user interface as compared to Microsoft 
windows. However, my brother is now finding that it is too difficult 
to support the Imac on his home network and DSL line. Vendors just 
do not provide the same support for Apple that they do for Windows. 
Additionally, it is too difficult to maintain both Windows systems 
(for his use) and Apple systems. Therefore, he is forced to switch 
the children to using Microsoft Windows.
    Second, if I wish to use a non-Microsoft product in an area 
where Microsoft is entrenched, I will be at a tremendous 
disadvantage when trying to share information. I will be speaking 
French when everybody else is speaking English. For example, given 
that everybody uses Microsoft Excel or Word, what real freedom do I 
have to select a different word processor or spreadsheet (even if 
superior) when I will be unable to share files with my clients or 
vendors.
    Third, I have invested substantial time in learning to use and 
debug my existing Windows and Microsoft application programs. I 
cannot afford to switch to a competing operating system or 
application and start at ground zero on the learning curve. The 
amount of time it takes to learn to use a new application is 
enormous. It far outweighs the dollar cost of purchasing the 
product. To become as proficient in another word processor 
application as I am in Microsoft Word after years of use would take 
months at the very least. No one can afford that cost. AS 
applications grow larger and more complex, this barrier grows larger 
and larger in Microsoft's favor.
    In an interview, Bill Gates himself points out that Microsoft's 
biggest competitor (when they release a new operating system) is 
themselves. Users who have already invested time and money in 
purchasing and using an older version of Windows are loathe to 
switch to a new version because of the cost in dollars and time to 
install, debug, and learn the new version. Imagine then the barrier 
posed to a completely new operating system or application.
    Fourth, there is risk that if I am using a non-Microsoft 
product, the vendor will eventually be forced out of business by 
Microsoft and I will ultimately have to switch to the Microsoft 
product anyway. This was the case with my Lotus and WordPerfect 
products. In both case, I was finally forced to switch to Microsoft 
products when the vendors went out of business. Now, if I need to 
choose between a Microsoft and competing product, the safe decision 
is to select Microsoft because it is likely the competitor will be 
eventually driven out of business.
    Fifth, there is a cost to switch to a new application because of 
prior work (data files) that has been generated by the old 
application. If I have a substantial amount of prior work saved in 
data files produced by my Microsoft applications, switching to a 
competing application means I lose compatibility with all of my old 
work. At the

[[Page 28045]]

very least, I will have to spend time converting the data files with 
the accompanying risk of losing information or formatting.
    Sixth, It is risky to use a non-Microsoft product because 
Microsoft has the upper hand in keeping its applications in step 
with operating system upgrades and taking advantage of new operating 
system features. Microsoft is in a position to improve its products 
faster because it is also in charge of the underlying operating 
system. By the same token, Microsoft applications are least likely 
to break with operating system upgrades. No competitor has that same 
advantage. (If Microsoft argues there is no advantage, then it 
should have no complaint against being separated into two 
independent companies).
    In summary, I do not have the freedom to choose to use Microsoft 
products because they are superior but am forced to use them because 
the investment in time and potential risk to use competing products 
is too high. There are many examples where Microsoft did not have a 
superior product (or, initially, even a product), but ultimately 
succeeded due to its monopoly position. For a non-exhaustive list, 
consider the products: Word (vs. WordPerfect), Excel (vs. Lotus), 
Internet Explorer (vs. Netscape), Microsoft Project (vs. Symantec's 
Timeline project management software) and even Windows (vs. the 
Macintosh). In each of these cases, Microsoft did not have the first 
product or even the better product. Yet, over time in each case 
Microsoft has either put the other product out of business or become 
the clear-cut market leader.
    In these cases, Microsoft did not succeed because it was the 
innovator; but because it had a monopoly in the operating system 
market. It could use its ownership of the operating system and its 
monopoly profits to enter new markets and eventually push out the 
competition. No other company, even dominant ones such as Lotus, 
WordPerfect, and Novell with all their financial resources, has been 
able to compete successfully against Microsoft because of the 
monopoly Microsoft enjoys.
    Another example of the monopoly power Microsoft enjoys, is its 
recent decision not to include JAVA in its latest version of 
Windows. Given the runaway popularity of JAVA, only a monopoly such 
as Microsoft could risk making that decision. In a competitive 
environment, no operating system vendor would decide to exclude JAVA 
and pursue its own initiative. Microsoft can afford to do that 
because it wields such absolute control over the operating system 
market. A consumer has no alternate choice of operating systems so 
he is forced to accept Microsoft's decision to exclude JAVA from the 
operating system.
    As a final example, consider the operating system called 7OS/27 
developed and marketed by IBM. There can be no question that it was 
a superior operating system and years ahead of Microsoft Windows. It 
failed however because of the barrier posed by Microsoft's installed 
base of users. The fact that even IBM failed to make any headway in 
the market is further evidence of Microsoft's power as a monopoly.
    Microsoft may argue that the reason for its success in all of 
the above examples is that it had the better product or strategy. 
This is patently false. Microsoft was not the first one to introduce 
a windowing operating system, an internet browser, the concept of a 
spreadsheet, a word processor, etc. Microsoft has only been 
successful in first copying and then outlasting the competition.
    Microsoft argues that there is no need to regulate Microsoft as 
a monopoly because technology and the product landscape change so 
fast that not even Microsoft can exercise monopoly powers. I think 
it is just this argument taken in context of Microsoft's success 
time after time over the last decade that is the smoking gun. No 
company other than Microsoft has been so successful. It is so 
unlikely that in an area where the pace of change is this fast, that 
any one company could be so successful in every endeavor it 
undertakes, that it must be taken for granted that the company 
enjoys substantial monopoly power.
    Contrast Microsoft's situation to that of microprocessors and 
Intel. Intel is a dominant market leader but faces fierce 
competition from AMP, Motorola, and others in the microprocessor 
market. As a result, we have seen a 100-fold or more increase in 
price vs. performance (comparing a 33MHz 80386 processor to a 2GHz 
Pentium II) over perhaps the last 10 years.
    Imagine a situation where Intel enjoyed the same monopoly 
position that Microsoft does today. That is to say, there was 
effectively no competition from AMD, Motorola, or others. Without 
doubt, we would not have seen the same increase in performance vs. 
price. Intel would not have been forced to innovate and cut prices 
at the rate it is forced to do so today in order to maintain its 
market leadership. This is clearly evident from the reported news 
where each time AMD releases a microprocessor, Intel responds by 
cutting prices. Of course, there would still have been improvements 
in microprocessor performance if Intel was a monopoly, but nowhere 
near the current pace. Intel would have made slow improvements at 
its own unhurried pace under little pressure from others.
    Microsoft has at times argued that it is not a monopoly because 
the price of its operating system software (as a percentage of the 
price of a PC) has come down over the years and this is 
characteristically untrue of monopoly pricing. Even if the price of 
software is in fact lower today than 10 years ago, it is a 
meaningless statistic. The relevant question is what would the price 
of software be today if Microsoft did not enjoy a monopoly position. 
As compared to the innovation fostered in the microprocessor arena 
due to competition, software performance has advanced relatively 
slowly. There certainly has not been a 100-fold increase in the 
performance of Microsoft's software over the last 10 years.
    In considering the proposed settlement, the court must balance 
protecting Microsoft's rights and our system of free enterprise 
against the damage to society from continued abuse by Microsoft's 
monopoly position. I think the court must err on the side of the 
consumer. On a big-picture scale, there is no great damage to 
Microsoft, its shareholders or the concept of free enterprise by 
breaking Microsoft into separate operating companies. On the other 
hand, there is potential for great damage to innovation and free 
enterprise if Microsoft is free to remain a monopoly and to use its 
power to stifle new products and block the success of other 
companies.
    In conclusion, the question simply comes down to whether the 
typical end user is better off because of Microsoft's monopoly. As a 
typical end user, I am firmly convinced that I am not and hope that 
the courts will take strict action.
    Sincerely,
    D. Shah



MTC-00027515

From: Roy S. Alba
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:51am
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir: I will attain the age of 75 this coming July 27th, and 
I have been following the US Justice Department's case against 
Microsoft since its inception, and I believe the proposed settlement 
is in the best interest of all the parties.
    To reject the settlement and to pursue it further can only lead 
to killing the Goose That Lays the Golden Eggs. If not killed it 
would be so frightened that it would stop laying Golden Eggs.
    I pray the court will approve the Settlement.
    Roy S. Alba
    CC:[email protected]@inetg
w



MTC-00027516

From: Frank Perara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:52am
Subject: FW: Microsoft Antitrust Litigation
From: Frank Perara 
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 10:41 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Litigation
    Dear sir's,
    I am a completely satisfied customer of Microsoft products from 
the DOS to the present Windows operating systems. I believe that 
Microsoft has pioneered the computer industry and has given the 
consumer high performance equipment in the marketplace where others 
have competed fairly to provide freedom of choice at a fair price. 
The consumer has benefited from Microsoft products and business 
practices. I believe the case against Microsoft is without merit and 
is sponsored by those who have not been as successful in the 
marketplace as Microsoft. I believe the settlement that Microsoft 
has proposed is fair and urge you to approve it.
    Thank you
    Frank Perara



MTC-00027517

From: ray spence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I am writing in response to the proposed settlement to Civil 
Action No. 98-1233--the antitrust case against Microsoft.
    I am not in favor of the settlement terms. It seems to me that 
this set of requirements are solely concerned with either

[[Page 28046]]

    1) allowing OEMs the right to alter the Windows OS desktop, boot 
any Windows OS computer into another non-Microsoft OS or in general 
work with non-Microsoft vendors to sell non-Microsoft 
products--or--
    2) allow non-Microsoft software developers, Internet providers 
and content providers contractual access to the Windows OS.
    I agree that what I've outlined above, and what is the entirety 
of the proposed settlement is necessary. I do not believe this 
settlement goes far enough.
    Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust activities which has 
allowed it to occupy a monopolistic control over the computer 
industry. Here is a paradigm which just might provide a novel 
problem for antitrust legislation; to wit, the monopoly exists now, 
so any settlement must take steps to immediately restore fair 
competition to the computer software industry. Yet unlike an entity 
such as AT&T where simply breaking up the single company into 
many different corporate entities allowed competition, Microsoft's 
monopoly does not control from one service (phone service) but from 
the myriad software applications that are available from ISVs which 
are available *only* for Windows.
    This marketplace condition creates the notion that the only 
viable OS choice is Windows. I believe we have arrived at this 
condition from the close relationship between Microsoft's Office 
product and the fact that Office was and is written primarily for 
Windows and still for only one other OS--the Macintosh OS. As 
Microsoft used both legal and illegal paths to place both these 
products at the forefront of all IHV concerns the business world 
came use these two Microsoft products seemingly without exception. 
If a company chose to use Office it commonly chose Windows as its 
OS. At the present time it seems that Office and Windows are just 
two more tools on any corporate desk alongside pens, scissors, paper 
staples etc. But the difference from the other tools is that Windows 
and Office come from just one single company whereas one can pick 
and choose from many sources for their pens and paper. The most 
salient fact in this case is that Microsoft is indeed a monopolist 
yet the question as to just how to reduce this monopoly is still 
unanswered in this proposed settlement. Clearly the DOJ needs to 
address the current state of Microsoft's monopoly.
    My assessment of the main two targets of this settlement above 
do nothing to reduce Microsoft's monopoly. Furthermore I firmly 
believe that unless the above corporate dependence on Microsoft 
Office is reduced Microsoft's monopoly will continue. The only 
meaningful solution is to somehow separate either Windows or Office 
from Microsoft's control. I would guess that this approach was 
intended in the first decision to break Microsoft into two or more 
companies.
    Although I support such a corporate division if that path isn't 
available then I propose forcing Microsoft to divest itself at least 
of the Office suite of applications. The second requirement would be 
that the new Office owner must make Office available to other OS 
products other than Windows on an equal update schedule. Then the 
computer-using world should get closer to a real choice at least in 
the OS market, which is the true kernel of this monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Ray Spence



MTC-00027518

From: Robert Wohlfarth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement, in its current form, offers little 
protection to consumers from monopolistic practices. Microsoft is 
permitted to continue bundling unneccesary software with its 
operating system. And it may continue to exclude competition through 
license agreements. The license agreements are the greatest threat 
to consumers. They prohibit computer makers from using any software 
but Microsoft. The software license prohibits a user from 
researching software problems, even if Microsoft refuses to 
acknowledge those problems.
    These license provisions allow Microsoft to run roughshod over 
consumers. And only strengthen its monopoly position. The current 
settlement does not appear to address these issues.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
    Robert Wohlfarth
    [email protected]
    Chesterfield, IN
    ``Is not life more important than food, and the body more 
important than clothes?''--Matthew 6:25b



MTC-00027519

From: darrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Destroying Credibility of 
Justice System
    Gentlemen:
    The Microsoft settlement is legitimately destroying any 
credibility the justice system might have had in administration and 
regulation of antitrust laws. Yes, I know lawyers love to point out 
it is a legal system rather than a justice system. However, in the 
long run effective government must reflect some rough notion of 
equal protection, government not for sale and some approximation of 
morality and ethical conduct. The Microsoft case and settlement 
dramatically illustrates the complete lack of those values being 
reflected in the ``system's enforcement'' of legal rules 
of behavior. By the way, it isn't the ``system'' simply 
because you are a person reading this; please wake up and do your 
job --''Judge''.
    Over 30 years ago, I took a single MBA course on antitrust law. 
It was very clear that predatory pricing policies were strictly 
illegal, under both Sherman and Robinson-Pattman. When Microsoft 
priced its competitive product at $0 it was obviously the ultimate 
predatory pricing policy. It is amazing and embarrassing that it 
took the government over three years to conclude what was common 
knowledge on the streets of America as we watched Microsoft drive 
Netscape out of the business with a $0 price.
    Furthermore it was a lame excuse that because it was technology, 
somehow the antitrust laws did not apply. If you recall people used 
the same lame excuse to monopolize weaving looms earlier in the last 
century. As incredibly slow and inept as it was, the court finally 
concluded what was obvious when viewed cleanly. Without the 
confounded web of minute bafflegab supported by the economic might 
of Microsoft to bring any legal argument on antitrust from the last 
100 years up for discussion, a reasonable man could have had the 
case concluded in about a week, at least in my opinion. The result 
for Microsoft has been to delay a court decision out of the realm of 
timely relevance.
    The current settlement does nothing to insure behavior will 
change nor punish that behavior in any way that has effective 
business force sufficient to curb it in the future. The simple fact 
is that Microsoft is a monopoly. Furthermore, it has used and is 
using that power to ever extend that monopoly to the net and beyond. 
They are again doing it thinly veiled, openly in defiance of 
national law.
    As an MBA/MSEE/CEO with over 25 years in the electronics 
industry, I can testify that the current settlement is a pathetic 
travesty of justice and law. From my point of view, an appropriate 
and practical remedy would be to break Microsoft into 6 Companies, 
all with the same code sources to start out, no interlocking 
ownership allowed and let each segment markets and compete like 
everyone else. That solution or one like it would solve the problem 
because each of those companies could choose to supply source or not 
to customers, add special features for target markets, and each 
would be forced to serve their markets aggressively or have it taken 
away by someone willing to do a better job--Just like everyone 
else! That solution or others that would really work are not hard to 
come up with; however, Microsoft clearly will not like it; which in 
turn is a good indication it would be a good solution. Any notion 
that a team of lawyers and bureaucrats could control Microsoft's 
behavior through administrative mechanisms independent of their 
wealth, power and influence is an expensive exercise in futility.
    As a practical matter, it simply won't work.
    Currently reported massive lobbying efforts by Microsoft and 
their failure to disclose contacts and/or who they have given money 
to gain influence renders Government authority over the rich 
laughable! Somewhere along the line the judicial system must 
recognize that the appearance of impropriety does damage to it's 
very credibility. In the public eye Microsoft has not only bought 
off the US Government but the government has provided an overly 
complex legal framework to allow obfuscation of the core elements of 
antitrust laws. Yes, I know bought off implies direct gangsterism 
but the effects of massive money are indirect and probably more 
damaging to our society. Influence on the political system is 
secured through massive lobbying and ``political 
contributions'' which in turn influence the courts. The Tunney 
Acts recognized the antitrust influence mechanisms. Those acts 
required at least disclosure.

[[Page 28047]]

    Somehow the Microsoft legal team continues to obfuscate even 
those explicit laws while they continue to avoid effective remedies 
against their monopoly.
    I strongly urge the current court to reconsider a different 
break up of Microsoft and secure a solution that is widely expected 
to work. The high tech software industry does not inherently follow 
large economies of scale that might justify a larger single company 
being the supplier of all software on the planet. Instead the most 
efficient economic production is achieved with smaller companies 
focused squarely on specific needs. All the downsizing and 
reorganizing of the last decade, even during strong economic times, 
attest to the ``right sizing'' of high tech companies. 
Even premier electronics companies such as Hewlett Packard have 
historically kept profit centers and business units below 400 people 
or so. At least until the original founders retired or passed on 
that system has worked well for them. More recently, when that 
company began operating in a monolithic mode, troubles began.
    Incidentally, I am a republican.
    Sincerely,
    Darrell L. Wilburn
    Saratoga, California
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027520

From: Steve Sergeant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Comments regarding Proposed Final Judgement
    United States v. Microsoft Corporation
    Civil Action No. 98-1232
    I am writing to express my disapproval with the Proposed Final 
Judgement as it currently stands. I fully agree with the comments 
filed by Ralph Nader on this matter . In Judge Jackson's findings of 
fact, he identifies the key to Microsoft's ability to maintain their 
monopoly power: The withholding of the technical details necessary 
for potential competitors to develop interoperable products.
    The Proposed Final Judgment specifically denies access by non-
commercial software developers to full documentation of Microsoft 
interfaces and file formats. The most likely threat at this time to 
Microsoft's monopoly position is from the non-commercial, volunteer 
collaborative efforts of ``open source'' software 
developers. A truly effective remedy would allow such developers to 
access any information necessary to build operating systems that are 
interoperable with Microsoft application programs, or to build 
application programs which interoperate with application programs or 
operating systems produced by Microsoft.
    The final judgment must not permit Microsoft to discriminate who 
can purchase technical information about their products. Allowing 
Microsoft to discriminate only perpetuates their monopoly. This 
technical information must not be licensed in any way that restricts 
any other developer from creating a competing or interoperable 
product, for clearly the purpose of the remedy is to encourage 
competition.
    This case is our best hope, as consumers of personal computer 
products, that competition and a free market will return to the 
software industry. When the average person can walk into any store 
that carries computers, software, or related accessories and find a 
wide range of options that are in no way dependent on Microsoft, 
then this case will have succeeded. Otherwise, I feel this case will 
have failed to enforce the anti-trust laws.
    Steven E. Sergeant
    1055 Summerwood Court
    San Jose, CA 95132-2958
    [email protected]
    Voice & FAX: 408/937-8116
    PCS/Cell: 408/829-7372



MTC-00027521

From: D. Mark Abrahams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea--it is not in the 
public interest. There are numerous problems with it.
    The problem I wish to emphasize is that it does not adequately 
allow developers using competitive operating systems (for example, 
Linux) to provide mechanisms so that duly-licensed copies of 
Microsoft applications can be made to run on the competitive 
operating systems. This helps continue Microsoft's monopoly on 
operating systems (and, in turn applications).
    Thank you for your consideration.
    D. Mark Abrahams
    President, Abrahams-Rizzardi Inc.
    (a very small independent software consulting firm)
    Berkeley, CA
    ph (510)524-1294



MTC-00027522

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:56am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs: Tomorrow the trial against Microsoft, which began months 
ago, will continue on. I sense the citizens of The United States and 
the world in general long for a resolution to put this trial behind 
us.
    Since September 11th, we need not dig more holes to hinder our 
future, but let the amazing talent of all our technological 
companies deliver superior products.
    Thank you for your time,
    Gordon Raisler



MTC-00027523

From: Betty Marler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe in Microsoft and want to support them but I am not 
sure how to do that. I am so tired of reading about the lawsuits 
against them and the judges who seem to be trying to destroy the 
company with their decisions.
    You would think that our government would be doing everything 
they could to support a company like Microsoft! It has had such a 
positive impact on our economy. Instead of being proud that our 
country has a company that is a leader in technology, it seems the 
government is trying to destroy Microsoft. Do whatever you have to 
do to support them so they can spend their time, energy and money to 
innovate instead of defending their success.



MTC-00027524

From: Mickey Aberman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Public Comment:
    I have no dog in the Microsoft fight. Nevertheless, I have been 
following the case since the trial started. Microsoft was proven to 
have committed massive antitrust violations. During the trial it was 
caught falsifying a demonstration, and its executives were caught 
lying many times. The court of appeals en banc upheld the findings 
of serious violations and monopolizing on a scale that is huge. This 
was apparently the full court of appeals, comprised to a large 
extent of conservative judges).
    How can Microsoft have any hope of avoiding massive punishment?
    A defendant one-tenth the size, whose violation had one-tenth 
the scope, would be trying to keep its executives out of jail.
    The Microsoft settlement is surreal (and unfairly favorable to 
the Defendant). It looks like political connections or intimidation 
have prevailed over justice.
    Microsoft really needs to be broken up into three parts.
    John M. Aberman
    2145 Radcliffe Avenue
    Charlotte, NC 28207
    (704) 372-5646



MTC-00027525

From: Mark Johnson MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:58am
Subject: Microsoft Penalty is Grossly Inadequate; I too have been 
greatly harmed!
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel compelled by duty to communicate my dismay and 
disappointment regarding the current terms of the Microsoft 
settlement.
    Frankly, the Justice Department sold out.
    After essentially a decade of similar allegations and toothless 
consent decrees, Microsoft has finally been conclusively proven in 
our nation's courts to have illegally used its monopoly power to 
dominate new markets. There is no question that a majority of 
consumers have experienced harm by Microsoft's business practices, 
even if most remain unaware of this harm.
    Microsoft has been very successful in serially establishing its 
own software offerings as industry standards, which admittedly has 
some consumer merit. However, all along the way, better offerings 
from other innovative and worthy companies were destroyed or 
rendered utterly irrelevant in Microsoft's trademark fashion. 
Microsoft's office suite and web browser were ``good 
enough'', but would not have competed successfully with 
products from other companies (ie WordPerfect, Informix, and 
Netscape) had they not been so closely tied

[[Page 28048]]

to contractual distribution obligations with the Windows operating 
system. In large measure, Microsoft has removed consumer choice and 
often reduced discerning consumers to nothing but followers. Those 
who venture away from Microsoft solutions know that they run the 
risk of obsolescence or irrelevance. This is a very stifling 
revelation. We should expect to base our software purchase decisions 
on quality, reputation, and value. We should not be dissuaded from 
purchasing from a given vendor simply because they conflict with 
Microsoft's latest growth strategy. Look at WordPerfect, Netscape, 
and Apple as prominent examples of reputable companies whose loyal 
customers, in many cases, have been severely harmed or detracted by 
the anticipated consequences of Microsoft's business practices.
    Too many worthy companies with innovative, quality products have 
been reduced to irrelevance for anyone to be justified in laying the 
blame on them or their management. If they are in a market that 
Microsoft wants, they will never win. Period. Look at Netscape's 
travails for a prime example.
    Finally, I have one profound example of personal harm. Long 
before the Palm Pilot, or Microsoft's Windows CE machines were 
available, I embarked on software development for Apple's Newton 
handheld. Several years later, just as my small company was about to 
release our first major solicited product, Apple showed signs that 
it was going to discontinue the Newton platform. Even more 
interesting was the fact that a business interest liked our product 
so much that they considered purchasing the entire Newton division 
from Apple, just to keep our product viable. We met with several key 
people at Apple under non-disclosure and, prior to terminating our 
discussions, were warned that we would feel intense pressure from 
Microsoft. We would be in their ``cross-hairs'' even as 
Netscape was at the time, and as Palm would be in the near-future. 
We were advised that, consequently, this would become a non-
sustainable business. Three days later, Apple announced to the world 
that it was indeed discontinuing the Newton, which business decision 
likely cost me well over $1 million. And general consumers of the 
Newton were left with expensive machines, but no future. In summary, 
Microsoft's business tactics have greatly harmed me and have 
certainly harmed most consumers in general.
    Please, remedy the Microsoft problem in such a way that this 
whole court proceeding is not similarly reduced to irrelevancy (or 
worse, implied endorsement.) Sadly, I fear that the terribly 
important points of this case were somehow lost in the change of 
administration and the general economic downturn of Sept. 11. 
Microsoft's punishment strategy was clearly to put forth delays in 
settlement until a sympathetic administration (or judge or 
settlement offer, or set of world events, etc) would surface, and 
this is exactly what seems to have happened. Nevertheless, a 
tempered (ie really punished), Microsoft would become a better 
corporate citizen. Healthy competition based on merit, not coercion, 
must be restored, in order to ultimately benefit all consumers.
    Most sincerely,
    Mark R. Johnson, MD
    (801) 944-4950
    1899 East Siesta Drive
    Sandy, UT 84093
    [email protected]



MTC-00027526

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello. I am writing to join the many people to comment on the 
Microsoft settlement. I don't think that Microsoft is being punished 
enough for the following reasons:
    1. Microsoft uses its dominance in the market to elbow out 
competition. This one is obvious, and the settlement doesn't do much 
to help this. It might require that MS release their API, but it 
only requires it to release the specs after they've implemented 
them. That could take other companies months to keep up, letting 
Microsoft still dominate the market.
    2. Microsoft spreads FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) about Linux, 
MacOS, and other competitors. Most of this FUD are lies, made simply 
to keep people from using a superior product.
    3. Microsoft is very obviously anti-competitive. Little shows 
that more than their recent lawsuit against Lindows.com. Their 
claim, that Lindows will be confused with Windows XP, is very 
ridiculous if you look at the logos and the names. The lawsuit is 
more likely an attempt to get Lindows.com out of the market before 
they can threaten MS's power and further Linux in the real world.
    For those reasons, I think that Microsoft's punishment should be 
more severe. Please consider this in your decision.
    Yan Shoshitaishvili
    Tucson, AZ



MTC-00027527

From: Blake Couch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is, in a word, a joke. Where are the 
financial penalties that might actually make Microsoft sit up and 
take notice? Where is the divestiture that might actually remedy the 
damage that they have caused? This citizen says ``thumbs 
down'' to a settlement that does virtually nothing to punish 
the greatest corporate felon of the last fifty years.
    Sincerely,
    Nicholas Couch
    Englewood, Colorado



MTC-00027528

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to express my opposition to the Proposed Final Judgment 
with Microsoft.
    I do not believe the proposed remedies will do anything to curb 
the behaviors of Microsoft which were found to be in violation of 
antitrust laws when the company was found guilty.
    For example, the proposal includes many opportunities or 
loopholes for Microsoft to exclude itself from API disclosure 
requirements. It can simply claim that there are security reasons 
for not documenting an API. It can itself define who is a true 
competitor. Why does this Proposed Final Judgment allow Microsoft 
such leeway in deciding itself whether it con be excluded from a 
requirement of the Proposed Final Judgment?
    Allowing Microsoft to claim security as a reason to not disclose 
an API is ridiculous. Unix and Unix-like operating systems describe 
all their APIs clearly, some even give you all their source code 
(Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc.) and do not consider this a security 
problem at all.
    Security through obscurity, as it is called, is most definitely 
not better than security through open discussion, availability ond 
peer review, and in my opinion (and that of many security experts) 
is worse. I believe that this particular exception to disclosure 
should never have made it into the Proposed Final Judgment.
    My opinion that the Proposed Final Judgment lacks any true 
corrective power goes beyond the comment above, but applies to it as 
a whole. I believe that this Proposed Final Judgment heavily favors 
the guilty in these proceedings and fails to adequately represent 
the United States of America. We the people, represented by the 
Department of Justice, received a verdict of guilty against 
Microsoft, yet it now seems that we are backing down in the 
sentencing phase. The fact alone that the guilty party in this 
matter likes this Proposed Final Judgment makes it suspect beyond 
specific problems with it.
    In summary, I believe the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the 
public interest. It does not seriously, nor effectively address the 
illegal behavior of the convicted monopolist, Microsoft.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Olivier Calle
    Senior Software Engineer, Citizen of the United States of 
America
    PO Box 752
    Marysville WA 98270-0752



MTC-00027529

From: Pedro Celis (wrnha)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Republican National Hispanic Assembly of Washington State
    Dear Sirs,
    As Chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly of 
Washington State we offer our endorsement of the agreement reached 
by Microsoft, the U.S. Department of Justice and nine states. The 
settlement should be accepted not only for its specifics, but also 
for the principles that it represents. Whenever conflicts arise, our 
government should strive to find common ground and reach compromises 
with business. Negotiation and settlement is a better model for 
government-business relations than litigation. It is unfortunate 
that the dispute between Microsoft and the government has already 
resulted in such a long and costly trial.

[[Page 28049]]

    Better still, government should seek to minimize its 
interference with the competitive market place; it should work as an 
ally with, not an adversary to, business.
    Litigation is never good for business or industry. Because 
virtually all businesses rely on technology, the Microsoft case 
affects us all. As the case proceeded, it appeared that government, 
not the competitive marketplace, might establish the direction of 
technology. Such an event would have proved disastrous for the 
technology industry, for the greater business community, and for the 
economy. We are happy to see that a comprise and agreement has been 
reached between these parties and we encourage you to accept this 
settlement.
    This settlement would be fair and reasonable at any time, even 
if our economy was growing at a rapid pace. However that is not 
currently the case, and for that reason it is all the more important 
that the settlement be finalized and the American technology 
industry starts to benefit from a public policy that minimizes 
costly regulation, ensures competition, and promotes fair trade and 
intellectual property enforcement in international markets.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Pedro Celis, Ph. D.
    Republican National Hispanic Assembly
    Washington State Chairman



MTC-00027530

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the ``Proposed Final 
Judgment'' (PFJ) to resolve the USDOJ's antitrust case against 
Microsoft. First, it seems to me very likely that if this PFJ is 
approved, Microsoft's leadership will proclaim themselves to have 
been vindicated (despite conviction, which was upheld on appeal), 
and that they will proceed to ridicule and demean this judgment much 
like they did the previous consent decree, the abrogation of which 
led directly to this antitrust case. The reason behind my assertion 
is that the PFJ neither punishes Microsoft for any of their illegal 
acts, nor remedies the effects of those acts, nor offers any 
substantial protection against the likelihood of Microsoft 
committing similar illegal acts in the future. The PFJ leaves 
Microsoft's monopoly intact, leaves Microsoft with an extraordinary 
amount of cash that they have obtained from their monopoly, and 
allows them to continue leveraging their monopoly to compete 
unfairly with other businesses.
    It seem obvious that the only way to protect other businesses 
from unfair competition based on Microsoft's monopoly is to isolate 
the monopoly products and their profits from Microsoft's other 
business concerns. A crude way to do this would be to split 
Microsoft into two pieces: a monopoly platform software business, 
and an independent non-monopoly business. This is what the DOJ 
originally proposed and Judge Jackson ordered, so it is surprising 
that such a remedy is no longer under consideration. I wonder why 
that is?
    There also exists an alternative approach to this problem that 
is simpler, may be more effective, and almost certainly would be 
much more beneficial to all sectors of the public: release 
Microsoft's monopoly platform software products under a strong open 
source license such as the GNU GPL.
    This would satisfy Microsoft's OEMs by allowing them full access 
to the source code and giving them the right to modify and reproduce 
the software freely; it would also ensure Microsoft full access to 
any further developments made to the code base; but the critical 
effect would be to eliminate Windows as a monopoly, therefore 
eliminating all prospect of Microsoft abusing that monopoly. 
(Microsoft would also have to give up the Windows trademark, which 
should be assigned to a standard group, such as has already been 
done with the Unix trademark.) While this may seem a bit 
unconventional, the basic fact is that open sourcing Windows would 
put it on the same footing (except for its vast advantage in legacy 
applications and hardware support) as its only remaining competition 
(Linux and BSD Unix). We also know from experience with open source 
software that it can continue to be developed and even become 
significantly more robust even without business sponsors.
    I don't see how anything less than such a solution begins to 
solve the monopoly leverage problem. However, if you must limit 
yourself to a ``behavioral'' solution, the PFJ needs to be 
strengthened in several ways:
    1) You should require that Microsoft publish and strictly adhere 
to a price list for all Windows-related operating system platform 
software, and all applications software that runs on Windows 
platforms. The PFJ limits this to the ``top 20'' OEMs, but 
the broader requirement would simpler and clearer to implement and 
monitor, and would be less tempting to Microsoft to abuse.
    It is important here to include applications software in order 
to limit (at least make public) any suspicion of Microsoft using 
their platform software monopoly to subsidize their applications 
software busienss. Moreover, there should be no exclusions for 
``market development'' consideration, since any such 
exclusion would allow Microsoft to cut inequitable deals, and 
because with a monopoly already in hand there's no need for market 
development.
    2) The prohibitions against Microsoft retaliation have too many 
exceptions. Is there really any reason to permit Microsoft to 
retaliate against an OEM other than non-payment or impropriety in 
accounting?
    3) All Microsoft interface specifications and documentation that 
are made available to OEMs, IHVs, ISVs, etc., should be made 
available to all parties on equal terms. In particular, there should 
be no discrimination against noncorporate developers or users 
(especially open source software developers). There should be no 
restrictions in Microsoft licenses or contracts against reverse 
engineering.
    4) There should be a requirement that formats for all data that 
is stored to disk by Microsoft platform software and/or operating 
systems be documented and freely licensed; this is intended to 
eliminate one significant method that can be used to lock current 
customers in and unfairly perpetuate Microsoft's monopoly position 
(although it would be a good rule to apply to software companies, as 
it protects users'' investments in their data).
    5) There should be some form of oversight to prevent Microsoft 
from using lawsuits to hobble potential competition, including open 
source software developers.
    6) There should be severe restrictions against Microsoft buying 
other companies. In general, it would be much more appropriate for 
Microsoft to pay its monopoly profits out to shareholders as 
dividends which would be reinvested diversely than to allow 
Microsoft to extend its monopoly through acquisition.
    7) The ``security'' loophole needs to be carefully 
monitored to prevent abuse.
    It's not clear what the enforcement mechanism in the PFJ is. 
There needs to be a method to prevent Microsoft from acting in 
violation of the agreement, rather than depending on decade-long 
post facto litigation.
    The Technical Committee proposal needs to be expanded to include 
some degree of oversight and review from more sectors of the public. 
The PFJ seems to be preoccupied with concerns of OEMs, but there are 
many other recognizable groups which have distinct concerns, 
including the open source community and several classes of end-
users.
    An important thing to note in these nine points is that not only 
do they fall short of a structural or open source remedy, they are 
actually much milder than traditional monopoly regulation, which 
often requires regulatory approval of prices and contract terms and 
strictly prohibits non-monopoly business activities. (E.g., AT&T 
before their breakup.)
    Another thing to note is that while Microsoft has effectively 
destroyed any possibility of another commercial software company 
challenging them in the areas which they monopolize, it is still 
possible that Microsoft's behavior can be mitigated by market 
factors due to open source software. Open source already operates at 
a considerable disadvantage vs. Microsoft (look at Microsoft's 
balance sheet), so we need to be very careful that nothing we do 
here further disadvantages the open source alternative.
    I've also read the dissenting States'' counterproposal, 
which is much clearer and preferable regarding OEM contracts and 
retaliation, but contains several proposed remedies that are, I 
think, counter- productive. These include:
    1) Open sourcing Internet Explorer: While this has some poetic 
justice, IE (assuming it is extractable from Windows, which 
Microsoft contends it is not) has no value as open source itself, 
especially without a strong commitment (which can hardly be 
mandated) from Microsoft to the open source process.
    2) Requiring Microsoft to distribute Java: This strikes me as 
inappropriate direction to Microsoft (it is one thing to tell 
Microsoft not to do something, but forcing them to do something they 
do not want to do is not likely to be a happy solution for anyone); 
it also strikes me as inappropriate to mandate Java as a standard, 
especially given that it is controlled by a private company.
    For whatever it's worth, I am a software engineer and writer. 
I've used Microsoft

[[Page 28050]]

products extensively for over 20 years, as well as Unix for a 
similar period, and have worked on software products for a similar 
period--both applications and system software, including 
operating systems and programming languages.
    I feel that Microsoft did some remarkable work in their earlier 
years, but I've noted that their products have deteriorated and 
become markedly more ominous, especially since Windows 95 and the 
advent of IE, although one might also dateline this against the 
emergence of Bill Gates as the world's richest man. When I was 
growing up it was often said that ``power corrupts, and 
absolute power corrupts absolutely''--I think we've 
started to see the fruits of that truism in Gates and Microsoft. At 
the start of this antitrust case it was often opined that the case 
would amount at best to ``too little, too late.'' If you 
accept the PFJ, that opinion will be affirmed, and it will be left 
to some future generation to stand up to the corruption of 
Microsoft's power. I pray that this court can and will stand up for 
us now.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    Tom Hull
    thull at kscable.com
    http://www.tomhull.com/



MTC-00027531

From: Patrick Melody
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing in regard to the Microsoft Settlement. I am 
troubled by the settlement as it does not appear to do anything to 
remedy harm caused by Microsoft's actions nor do anything to promote 
the public good. As background information on myself, I have a 
master's degree in computer science and have worked as a 
professional programmer since 1995. Previous to this I have used and 
programmed computers as a hobby since high school in the early 
1980s.
    The operating system is the lowest level of software on a 
computer, on which all other software running on the computer 
depends. The value of a ubiquitous operating system to the public is 
that it provides a unified platform on which to target applications. 
Program developers need learn only this one system, and large 
numbers of users may then enjoy the availability of numerous 
application programs.
    Furthermore, these users can easily interoperate with each other 
since they all share the OS as a common infrastructure. The value of 
a ubiquitous operating system to it's owner is the dependence of 
millions of users on the owner. This dependence can be used to 
leverage dependence in other areas besides the OS. The Internet 
``works'' and has enjoyed great success because it was 
built on open protocols that are independent of any particular 
hardware or software program. Even though you and I may use 
completely different hardware platforms, operating systems, and/or 
email programs, we can still exchange email with no difficulties. 
Even though our web pages may be produced with different authoring 
programs and we may use different web browsers, we can still read 
each others web pages. This is due to the open protocols and data 
formats used on the internet. In the age of the disconnected desktop 
computer, the operating system was the common substrate. In the age 
of connected systems a new common substrate as appeared: 
communications protocols and file/data formats. The benefit of the 
public to these open protocols and formats is clear: the ability to 
have software written by anyone interoperate seamlessly and 
effectively with software written by anyone else.
    First, any networking protocols used by Microsoft must be fully 
published and approved by an independent network protocol body 
before any Microsoft software using them is deployed. This 
especially applies to the .NET and associated Hailstorm and Passport 
technologies, which Microsoft is clearly positioning to be 
tomorrow's ubiquitous software infrastructure. The purpose of this 
is to ensure the ability of anyone's software to interoperate with 
Microsoft software and prevent Microsoft from using their OS 
monopoly to gain a monopoly over internet usage.
    Second, any file formats used by Microsoft must be fully 
published so that these files may be read and written by independent 
developers, again to ensure interoperability with Microsoft's 
software.
    Finally, there must be effective provisions for the settlement 
to be enforced since a settlement that can be ignored without severe 
repercussions is no settlement at all.
    Microsoft has repeatedly indicated it feels it has done nothing 
wrong and that this entire case is an unjustified imposition on it, 
even going so far as to fake video evidence in front of a federal 
judge. Such a defendant cannot be trusted on its own recognizance. 
The current settlement has no teeth.
    Microsoft will undoubtedly cry that these measures are unfair. 
However, the rules of business are different for monopolists than 
for non-monopolists, and there must be a penalty for monopolists 
found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly as Microsoft has 
done. As such, these measures are not unfair and would greatly serve 
the public interest by allowing nonmonopolist software to interact 
on even ground with the monopolist's software, allowing more 
competition and more options to the public in choosing their 
products and services.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick J. Melody
    3708 Acosta Rd
    Fairfax VA 22031
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00027532

From: B. Kosnik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:11am
Subject: against settlement as currently proposed
    I am sending this as a concerned US citizen who works in the 
information technologies field. I am saddened that this promising 
lawsuit might end up doing so little.
    The settlement will still allow Microsoft to extend and keep 
private all of its office application API, as well as office 
application file formats and intra-application communication 
protocols. Allowing this, in my opinion, is giving Microsoft consent 
to continue on as a monopolist in the desktop OS and desktop 
application space.
    It is imperative that all Microsoft file formats be released 
publicaly, along with Microsoft-supplied validation suites to ensure 
format fidelity. These formats should be freely licensed to all, 
allowing even software that is not sold (ie free software) to make 
use of these formats for data interchange.
    Note that this allows all kinds of information tools, free and 
non-free, but explicitly demands a level and competitive playing 
field.
    Thanks,
    Benjamin Kosnik
    CC:[email protected]@inet
gw



MTC-00027533

From: Rob Pegoraro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:17am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement for the reasons set out in the 
article below, which I wrote for the Washington Post in early 
November. Although I wrote it on my employer's time and money, it 
does not necessarily represent the Post's views on this matter. I 
can, however, attest that it accords with the opinions of a great 
many readers, if my own e-mail is any evidence.
    Sincerely,
    Rob Pegoraro
    By Rob Pegoraro
    Friday, November 9, 2001; Page E01
    What are we going to do about Microsoft?
    The government has been fretting over this question for the past 
decade. So far, it has compiled an impressive record of the things 
Microsoft has done wrong in the past.
    Unfortunately, it always seems to find out about these abuses 
after the damage has been done. And it has yet to effectively 
address what Microsoft might do in the future.
    The proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft announced last week continues this embarrassing tradition. 
It's not just that this slim document fails to mandate any 
punishment for breaking the law (the next time I get a speeding 
ticket, can I negotiate this kind of arrangement, too?), or that its 
numerous ``nothing in this section shall prohibit'' 
clauses appear to vacate most of its provisions. The real problem is 
that it focuses so much on the individual PC desktop, when Microsoft 
is moving on to other battles.
    This settlement spends much of its time trying to carve out 
space for PC manufacturers to add non-Microsoft 
``middleware'' to run a broader set of applications. This 
would have been a laudable goal half a decade ago, when PC vendors 
aggressively experimented with their own front ends for Windows.
    As the court case thoroughly documented, Microsoft didn't like 
this creativity one bit and quickly quashed the manufacturers'' 
dissent. In response, the proposed settlement's first prescription 
begins with the phrase ``Microsoft shall not retaliate'' 
and goes on to stipulate how Microsoft must treat all its licensees 
equally and fairly. The hope is that this government-mandated 
liberty will

[[Page 28051]]

encourage PC builders to offer choices outside the Microsoft way.
    ``I think it's going to help,'' said Daniel Morales, a 
vice president with MandrakeSoft, a Linux distributor in Pasadena, 
Calif. But he warned: ``There's a lot of details that are very 
slanted towards Microsoft.''
    None of the manufacturers I contacted wanted to speak, on or off 
the record, about any of their plans once the settlement goes into 
effect. Most didn't want to comment about the settlement at all. 
It's remarkable how many different reasons these companies offered 
for not talking about the biggest issue in the industry in a decade.
    But neither the manufacturers'' sudden case of laryngitis 
nor any subsequent failure to offer new choices to consumers should 
surprise anybody. In the bruised, battered PC business, there's 
nothing to be gained by alienating your biggest supplier. The 
agreement can't repeal this law of human relations.
    ``In the real world, there are ways to express displeasure 
without violating that agreement,'' said Dan Kusnetzky, vice 
president for systems software research at IDC, a leading industry 
analysis firm. And Microsoft often doesn't appear to understand that 
the phrase ``abuse of monopoly power'' isn't a compliment. 
It continues to push its Passport user-ID system on customers in the 
hope of turning this scheme into an Internet-age Social Security 
number--I've had to enter my Passport login just to download a 
software update. Windows XP relentlessly promotes Microsoft's own 
software, services, formats and marketing partners. Just weeks ago, 
the company locked non-Microsoft browsers out of its MSN.com site.
    The proposed agreement's more promising terms apply not to 
computer manufacturers but to independent software developers. The 
deal would require Microsoft to document all its applications 
programming interfaces, or APIs--the ways programs work with 
Windows itself-- as well as some of its networking protocols.
    That's a fine start. But the agreement fails to tackle 
Microsoft's other big leverage point--its proprietary file 
formats. ``The reason I can't walk into an organization and say 
``I'm going to use my Linux box'' is that people will send 
me Word documents that I can't read,'' said Jeremy Allison, co-
author of the Samba cross-platform networking program.
    The Microsoft Office formats are the classic case of this lock-
in. Developers of competing word processors and spreadsheets have 
little choice but to make sure their products can read and write 
these proprietary formats.
    ``We don't get any help from Microsoft,'' said Iyer 
Venkatesan, Sun Microsystems'' product manager for the 
StarOffice productivity suite. Some documentation is available, but 
it's ``incomplete and full of errors and 
inconsistencies,'' e-mailed Shaheed Haque, a developer of the 
KOffice suite for Linux.
    Sun would like to see Microsoft's formats turned into open, 
published standards. Allison would like to see the same thing done 
for all of Microsoft's communications protocols, beyond the 
settlement's limited requirements. With open access to the Windows 
APIs as well, said Kusnetzky of IDC, ``it would make it much 
easier to create an collaborative environment.''
    There's a model for this sort of requirement--telephone and 
electric utilities, which developed into monopolies and now are 
required to open their facilities to competitors.
    But the Microsoft agreement doesn't follow this particular 
logic. It still could--should--be amended. But what if it 
isn't?
    Microsoft is an odd company to contemplate. It employs a lot of 
smart people and can produce software of amazing quality. But it 
also has repeatedly broken the law and shows few signs of having 
learned its lesson.
    If you don't want Microsoft's way to be the only way, there are 
things to consider.
    Does the need to work with the same files as your Windows-using 
colleagues mean you need to use Microsoft applications, too? Does it 
even require you to run Windows itself? Are there better choices in 
Internet access than Microsoft's MSN? Even if Microsoft prods you 
into signing up for a Passport account, do you actually need to use 
it?
    In other words: What are you going to do about Microsoft?
    Living with technology, or trying to? E-mail Rob Pegoraro at 
[email protected].
    Rob Pegoraro
    703/812-4862
    2400 Clarendon Blvd., #214
    [email protected]
    Arlington, VA 22201



MTC-00027534

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 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,
    Vince Bradley
    5329 Summerlin Road
    Fort Myers, FL 33919



MTC-00027535

From: David O'Brien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement as it stands will not curtail 
Microsoft's actions in the computer industry. It does not go far 
enough to restrict Microsoft to legal and fair play. One can easily 
see parts of it are vague and Microsoft will be able to drive an 18-
wheeler thru the loop polls in it.
    Microsoft did not take the 1995 DOJ agreement seriously, nor 
will it take this current agreement seriously.
    Please do not accept and approve the proposed settlement as it 
currently stands. Please send it back to the drawing board.
    David ([email protected])



MTC-00027536

From: Ramon G. Pantin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:54am
Subject: type Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice representative,
    Attached is an HTML document with my comments about the 
settlement proposed. I have included my background and contact 
information in that document. Please feel free to contact me at:
    [email protected]
    or at home at:
    425-889-1043
    if you have trouble with the attached documents.
    Sincerily,
    Ramon G. Pantin
    CC:[email protected]@inet
gw,Argenis Tovar



MTC-00027537

From: Ed Dunphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    CC: 
[email protected]@inetgw
    Ed Dunphy
    President and CEO
    InstantSoft Inc.
    476 East Campbell Ave,
    Campbell CA 95008
    (408) 871-3092
    [email protected]
    Suite 200
To: US DOJ
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: Jan. 27, 2002
    Your Honor,
    I run a small independent software company (ISV) located in 
Campbell California which is next to San Jose. We have about 10 
people and we work with programmers from all over the world. We have 
chosen to be in the software industry and therefore I would like to 
exercise my right to provide to you my opinions as a technical 
professional executive. Please let me first tell you a little bit 
about my background.
    I was born in Washington DC in 1950. My father was a Colonel in 
the US Army and was in the Judge Advocate Core. He also practised in 
the U.S. Supreme Court and my mother worked for the Dept of 
Commerce. My mother's father was the Governor of Montana and another 
great relative was territorial Governor of Hawaii appointed by 
Roselvelt and bumped out of office when marshal law was enacted 
during the attack on Pearl Harbor.
    In 1973 I received a Masters Degree in Computer Science 
Mathematics and Statistics from the University of New Mexico where I 
was raised. My professors were mostly from

[[Page 28052]]

Sandia and Livermore Labs. Immediately after college I worked at the 
Air Force Weapons Laboratory with all appropriate clearances. It was 
1972-3 when Microsoft started in Albuquerque working on 
schemes to bundle their basic interpreter with memory upgrades to 
the Altair (first PC).
    My career took me to Massachusetts and Connecticut and back 
working for in computer graphics software for mechanical engineering 
for 15 years as a vendor, then a consumer in Combusion Engineering 
MIS group (which was then a Fortune 42 company) and Prime Computer 
Inc. a company which introduced the first LAN-intrinsic operating 
system and multiproccessor based 32-bit computers.
    In 1986 I moved to Europe to work as a Vice President at 
International Computers Limited and returned to the US in 1987 to 
work for Sun Microsystems Inc.
    Four years ago I left Sun to found InstantSoft. Inc. I use 
Microsoft products every day and have for decades. I use Netscape 
products every day and have since they started. I have read dozens 
of books, talked to dozens of people and written reports and books 
about the software industry. I am a published author as well as an 
software industry expert.
    I followed every minute of testimony and even downloaded Judge 
Jackson's opinion in the US DOJ vs. Microsoft Antitrust case. I read 
hundreds of the thousands of depositions that were posted online 
thanks to the T-1 I have to use.
    It is with this near total immersion of personal and 
professional interests that I feel compelled to write to express my 
objection to the settlement proposed by the Bush Administration's US 
DOJ. I will set out in this letter why I believe the proposed 
settlement is not in the publics best interest.
    I would like to share with you my strong concerns and 
reservations to the proposed settlement for three reasons.
    1. Microsoft's competitive position as a monopolist discourages 
real innovation in the software industry.
    The proposed settlement does not create a serious oversight 
function to monitor Microsoft. A vendor of this size, in an industry 
this dynamic; is extremely complex both technologically and 
structurally. There ought to be a department of the government 
involved in intellectual property the same way we have the Dept of 
Agriculture. The proposed settlement is so weak as to be 
disengenuous.
    Microsoft can afford to match 1000 people for every one the US 
DOJ might have involved in oversight and still get an ROI out of it. 
Why not make Microsoft foot the bill out of penalties to fund 1000 
people required to really be able to track this complex company in 
this highly complex industry? Microsoft's success is so huge and 
they have created such a mess that the US DOJ should make them fund 
the governments oversite rather than it being funded by the tax 
payers of the US.
    No expense should be spared to enforce our antitrust laws. This 
should stay in remain until Microsoft market share falls below 50%. 
Microsoft's should no longer be allowed to conduct business that 
extends their monopoly.
    There isn't really a single remedy or set of ``point 
remedies'' that will fix this. Its impossible to predict the 
future, but rest assured Microsoft will be a player in the future no 
matter what the US DOJ does. Judge Jackson's structural remedy for 
breakup was a logical conclusion. When Microsoft announces a new 
operating system, which ISVs and vendors are as ``in the 
know'' as Microsoft's own application software product groups? 
Applications will drive the operating system and due to its size and 
breadth, Microsoft can leverage its unfair competitive advantage to 
divisions within Microsoft giving them a completely unfair 
competitive advantage in terms of inside information and time-to-
market.
    No independent software company can compete with Microsoft 
unless Microsoft chooses to let it be. Does the proposed settlement 
do anything to curb or control or monitor the infamous chinese 
firewall that doesn't really exist?
    2. Microsoft's illegal and unethical business conduct has made 
Bill Gates and 2 others from Microsoft among the 5 richest people in 
the world. The wealth and power of this company and its founders and 
senior management is simply staggering.
    The proposed settlement is not even a tap on the wrist to 
Microsoft. In fact, it will only solidify the fear that Microsoft 
now has more power than the US Government and the Vatican combined. 
The only thing Microsoft understands and seeks is money and power.
    The proposed settlement does nothing to put substance behind the 
``you are guilty of antitrust'' message.
    Shouldn't they really have to now change their attitude?
    Being a monopoly is not illegal, but once found a monopoly why 
would the US DOJ not take commensurate and serious actions that are 
more proprotionate to the consequence and economic impact of their 
practises in the software industry. I do not see how any economist 
would look at the facts here and conclude that Microsoft has not 
profited enormously (and in my opinion largely as as a consequence 
of unethical and illegal business practises over decades.)
    The proposed settlement seems politically motivated. If this was 
oil instead of software, or Bush was from the software industry, 
maybe it would a different story. Is it possible that Microsoft is 
so elite, and so smart, and so aggressive, that it blows the minds 
of experts in our government as to how to deal with it in the 
aftermath of finding it a monopoly? This reminds me of a CEO I heard 
about who was shown a brand new computer that was a lot smaller and 
more powerful than the existing computers who said ``cool, so 
does this mean it will take fewer people to operate since its so 
small?''
    What indication does US DOJ have that Microsoft will really 
change its attitude and behaviour? How many times will they have to 
be found out before some sort of consequentiality cuts in? It should 
be three strikes and you are out, not three strikes and we'll let 
you walk anyway.
    Should Microsoft have been allowed to fund Apple its long term 
rival to the tune of $150 million just to prop it up so as not to 
look like it killed Apple too?
    I'm convinced that Microsoft and its founders are so highly 
integrated that to take action against Microsoft and not its 
founders misses the whole point of understand and curbing their 
excessive power. Microsoft has a legal racket. You can shut down the 
racket but it won't stop it. Isn't it like dealing with the mafia? 
Don't you have to deal with the Godfathers and the Dons? The 
proposed settlement does nothing to deal with the root issue. Whose 
behaviour needs to be changed? How is the proposed settlement going 
to put anybody in a position of power over the richest men in the 
world? This is why we have a government, to represent ALL of our 
interests.
    A company that moves as much wealth out of the pockets of users 
and into its treasury has to be admired. But when the company is 
using an illegal recipe to stay there the US D0J can't just let it 
slide. we are supposed to have and enforce the laws.
    3. Finally the proposed settlement raises the price of software 
for consumers and raises the barrier to entry for any company with 
new and highly innovative software.
    I am forced to pay a premium for often questionable value when I 
purchase Microsoft software. When Microsoft entered the server 
software market with a vengance with Windows NT. I remember 
purchasing a license for $4000 so that my Microsoft SQL Server could 
be accessed from the internet on the NT operating system. There was 
no product delivered, there was no manual, there was just a license. 
Don't hold me to the exact price, but this struck me as very odd and 
basically deceptive.
    Microsoft, following a best practise of IBM, simply waits it out 
and targets any vendor who begins to acheive a level of mass market 
penetration not only of the for software, but in virtually any and 
every type of software one can imagine. If you look at the history 
of acquisitions by Microsoft, it is hard to square this against the 
claim that they are interested in innovation. The only innovation 
they really care about is innovation that extends their market share 
and dominance. Isn't this capitalism running unchecked?
    Linux is an interesting threat to Microsoft. Why? Because a) its 
open source, b) its basically free and d) they can't control it. 
Should the government not promote open source and standards-based 
technologies in the interests of companies competing on the basis of 
excellence in implementation?
    Microsoft's cash machine is fueled by upgrades and new releases. 
Microsoft actually promotes how its old software was so buggy that 
users will benefit by buying the new upgrade. Does this sound like a 
good deal to you? Linux stands in stark contrast since it is 
technology that does not have business dependence built into it.
    Microsoft even capitalizes off of its own mistakes. I was amazed 
to have a Microsoft employee at Comdex show me with pride how you 
can search the 35 CDs of bug fix notes--and the CDs only cost 
hundreds of dollars. Is this innovation or a damn clevor built-in 
business scheme to embed unfair competitive advantage into Microsoft 
every go-to-market scheme?
    Does the proposed settlement provide any real incentive to 
Microsoft to drop prices, to

[[Page 28053]]

ship high quality product or to lower the lockin of customers and 
companies who have no choice but to use Microsoft products? A 
monopoly can get away with things that other vendors can't. They, 
not the customer, can dictate what options are available to the 
customer.
    One of the areas I have spent a great deal of time researching 
involves best practise in business partnering.
    Microsoft and many other leading software vendors have purchased 
research reports and consulting from my company over the years. This 
work and direct contacts with professionals in major corporations 
has given me tremendous insight into how large companies work with 
other companies to move their markets. The area of focus I have had 
has been Software partnership programs. Microsoft spends well over a 
billion a year on developer programs alone. A monopoly should not be 
allowed to use its resources to coopt and literally buy business 
allegiance from independent companies. I would therefore emphasize 
the any proposed remedy that does not have a proper level of 
investment behind it is not going to be able to recognize and 
monitor Microsoft's approach to business. What is required is 
comparable to the sophistication of a small department in an 
intelligence agency.
    Conclusions
    The proposed settlement is not in the industry's or the 
consumers best interest. It is not really in Microsoft's interest 
either because the likelihood that Microsoft will be back on the hot 
seat in the future is inevitable. Civil actions against Microsoft 
will likely be impacted adversely should the proposed settlement 
prevail.
    While I have opinions about a fair settlement, what I really 
expect and hope for from the US DOJ review of the proposed 
settlement is that it will be rejected and sent back to the drawing 
board as incomplete. Among the difficiencies in the proposal you 
might want consider stressing the following in re-defining an 
appropriate and fair settlement:
    1. Microsoft's business, and the personal business of its 
leadership, need to be systemically and deeply monitored. There 
should be a whole series of fixes each aimed with laser precision on 
specific elements of their conduct of business vis a vis their 
competitors, their supply chain and their business partnership 
agreements. What is needed are a sequence of precision hits not 
carpet bombing. The proposed settlement should define a far more 
robust process behind it that is auditable.
    The audit results and conclusions should be presented to an 
independent advisory council composed of good people that can 
contribute value in the process. The record of Microsoft's 
involvement in standards bodies should be monitored to ensure they 
are participating in advancement of the industry and not just 
themselves. The participation of members of these standards bodies 
participation in such an independent advisory council might also be 
recommended.
    2. You can't aim a remedy let alone deliver it with 2 troops on 
the ground. The US DOJ needs to put a small army to deal with this 
form of sophistication in unfair corporate practise.
    The government needs to provide safe harbor for competitors of 
Microsoft. Microsoft should not be above the American legal system. 
The proposed settlement needs to demonstrate to the American public 
that the settlement gives the government sufficient resources to 
deal with Microsoft everytime they stray out of their box and that 
the box itself will need to be reexamined and adapted every quarter 
as industry dynamics change.
    There should be a proposed budget to support whatever the 
watchdog group is that is setup. That budget has to be at least a 
few orders of magnitude higher that it currently is to have an 
credibility compared to what is at stake here.
    3. Microsoft's monopoly should be viewed as putting them in the 
category of a monitored utility. Since everybody needs what 
Microsoft produces and especially since Microsoft has demonstrated 
its ability to kill its competitors.
    Their behaviour and history demands a serious regulatory 
oversite. While DOJ stopped the Intuit acquisition there should be a 
hundred times more scrutiny applied to their actions now that they 
are a certified monopoly. Self-policing is a non-starter.
    The proposed remedy might recognize that Microsoft has more 
resources than the US DOJ. The proposed settlement should recognize 
the unique technological stranglehold Microsoft has on the computer 
and software industry. Perhaps limits can be placed on just how far 
Microsoft should be allowed to tie the government itself up in knots 
while maximizing their lobbying and soft money contributions to 
politicians.
    4. Since a structural remedy seems to drastic, surely Microsoft 
should be made to give back some of their ill-gotten gains. Not only 
should the Government fine them in an ongoing way to cover its costs 
of oversite and regulation, but it should go further to ensure that 
those responsible for future abuses will be face consequences and 
that means those in charge at the top. The proposed remedy should 
define clear consequences not just to the Microsoft corporation but 
to key officers who continue to engage in illegal and unethical 
conduct.
    5. Microsoft should be made to defend every pricing action, 
every new product introduction, every upgrade, every acquisition, 
every ad campaign and so on. They have not only banked a fortune but 
they seem to have created a possibly unstoppable franchise. The 
government should realize that corrective actions will take time and 
that its job has only started.
    It strikes me as unusual that the US DOJ would not seriously 
consider consulting with the appropriate ministries especially in 
Europe where the jury is still out on how the governments will come 
down on Microsoft antitrust. Would it not be better to coordinate 
with them on matters of intellectual property? While Robinson Patman 
might have no corallary in the rest of the world and while it might 
be imperfect, would it not be prudent to demonstrate a more 
coordinated response to Microsoft to get their attention?
    In conclusion, it seems only reasonable to explain why I took 
the time to write to you. I am an American entreprenuer in the 
software industry. It strikes me that there is no logical 
explanation why the US DOJ proposed settlement is in the best 
interests of the general public. As a highly informed and concerned 
professional it is great to have the opportunity to provide you with 
these comments.
    In the name of innovation, Bill Gates is allowed to effectively 
create a tax on the Microsoft installed base by creating an 
incompatibility or discontinuity in technology that virtually forces 
me to have to get upgrades and screw with my computers not because I 
want to but because there is no other choice. Microsoft should be 
monitored in terms of its compliance with industry standards so they 
can not go their way when the industry needs to go the way of open 
source and standards based computing.
    When multitasking preemptive kernel source code is available for 
free off the web, why don't I use it? The answer is usually 
applications.
    Microsoft refuses or can't or won't put their applications on 
any open source GPL or public domain operating system. The computer 
industry will only be healthy and grow if open market forces are 
allowed to function. The industry is out of balance and luckily, 
finally, the government recognized it. Now the government should 
take the lead to ensure that the richest man in the world and his 
friends don't stifle commerce and extract excessive profits from the 
general public as well as the American government because they can 
as a monopoly.
    I believe that Microsoft is far more calculated than parts of 
the FBI or CIA. Don't let this monopoly dampen innovation and value 
creation in such a critical industry. Computing is now as pervasive 
as any utility. We do not want one utility vendor buying the market 
out and killing competitors and then setting whatever price they 
want. We need to restore competition which will create more 
innovation, reduce prices through open market competition and 
provide some relief from the imposition of a ongoing Microsoft tax 
on all of us.
    Your decision regarding the proposed settlement is really about 
the fundamental right to no taxation without representation. As 
agents of the public interest, please give this matter the serious 
considersation it deserves despite its complexity.
    Thanks for hearing me out.



MTC-00027538

From: Alexa Frazee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I am responding to the news of the Proposed Final Judgement with 
Microsoft. As a student at a private university, I am very concerned 
about my government's recent actions, allowing for such a monopoly. 
I have no problem with Microsoft as a company, but i do recognize 
the need for competition in the marketplace. The Microsoft product 
is all too often in need of improvement and to eliminate any and all 
of its competitors will only cause the industry to progress slowly 
and loose some of its quality.

[[Page 28054]]

    As a consumer, I would appreciate being offered cutting edge, 
top quality software. I feel that my government is obligated to 
ensure a competitive, progressive industry. Please do what you can 
to preserve the ideals of the American marketplace.
    Thank You, Alexa Frazee
    (213) 742-0128
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,dkleinkn@yahoo...



MTC-00027539

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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. There are several significant failures of the proposed 
settlement. I will limit my comments to one specific problem.
    I believe Microsoft should give $1 billion in cash to help 
schools, instead of software and some money. This would seem to only 
hurt Microsoft's competitors in the education market as it is 
difficult to compete with free software. A far better settlement 
might be for Microsoft to give their proposed $1 billion--in 
cash--to an independent foundation, which will provide our most 
needy schools with the computer technology of their choice.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share my opinion about this 
very important decision.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremy Zane
    Network Administrator
    University of Oregon School of Law



MTC-00027540

From: Bill Hattenhauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:38am
Subject: Well WELL
    NO SURPRISE! MICROSOFT IS GUILTY OF MAINTAINING A MONOPOLY- BUT 
SUFFERS NO PENALTY!
    NO JUSTICE TODAY! This company profits illegally from it's 
thoughtful actions, robs the world of great competitive ideas by 
it's business practices, and is found guilty in court and is 
extended NO REAL PUNITIVE ACTION> NOT SMART.
    Our only hope now is that Linus Trippolli develops a new secret 
operating system that costs $40-50 US that runs all middleware 
and user programs on every system and completely disregards who the 
manufacturer of that software is. But in the mean time MS is busy 
trying to get new proprietary ``standards'' adopted by 
anyone stupid enough to accept the norm.
    YOU GET AN F. Hope the DOJ doesn't get the chance to prosecute 
the terrorists or we all will be in for it. My vote is Military 
Tribunal after this.



MTC-00027541

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 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,
    Kathleen Felmey
    26445 SE Rugg Road
    Gresham, OR 97080-8644



MTC-00027542

From: Marc Brenner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:43am
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement revised letter with address and 
phone
From: Marc Brenner
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 11:28 PM
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I and my family feel that the proposed settlement will not 
benefit the public interest. Microsoft should be forced to open its 
applications to other platforms, so that software and hardware from 
other vendors will run without crashing with Microsoft products and 
so that other platforms can develop and integrate with Microsoft 
applications.
    The court should hold public proceedings under the Tunney Act to 
give all parties the abilities to participate in settlement.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Marc Brenner
    835 Topper Lane
    Lafayette, CA 94549 Ph: 925 283 3408



MTC-00027543

From: Randolph Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:45am
Subject: Antitrust Remedy
    Microsoft Corporation's consistent pattern of monopoly abuse and 
intellectual theft is as damaging to American interests as Enron's 
abuse of accounting practices.
    The Department of Justice must sharply curb Microsoft 
Corporation in order to preserve freedom of choice in the computer 
market, and to encourage the entrepreneurial innovation necessary to 
maintain America's lead in computer hardware and software.
    Sincerely,
    Randolph Mitchell
    P.O. Box 9
    Oakville, CA 94562-0009
    707-944-8755
    Randolph Mitchell
    
    



MTC-00027544

From: Michael A. Alderete
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Antitrust Division
U.S. Dept. of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC, 20530-001
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to exercise my right under the Tunney Act to voice 
my strong disapproval of the current proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft anti-trust trial. The proposed settlement is both weak and 
lacking strong enforcement provisions, and is likely to have zero 
(or worse) effect on competition within the computer industry, with 
continued and increased harm to consumers in the form of fewer 
options in the software market and continued increases in the price 
of the Microsoft software consumers are forced to buy.
    Microsoft was convicted of abuse of monopoly power by one 
Federal judge, and the judgment was largely upheld by another seven 
Federal justices. In evaluating any proposed settlement, keep 
repeating one Important Phrase over and over: ``Microsoft is 
guilty.''
    The seven justices of the appeals court ruled that any actions 
taken against Microsoft (a) must restore competition to the affected 
market, (b) must deprive Microsoft of the ``fruits of its 
illegal conduct,'' and (c) must prevent Microsoft from engaging 
in similar tactics in the future. The proposed settlement fails on 
every one of these.
    (A) Restore Competition
    Among the many flaws in the proposed settlement is the complete 
disregard for the Open Source software movement, which poses the 
single greatest competitive threat to Microsoft's monopoly. Most 
organizations writing Open Source software are not-for-profit 
groups, many without a formal organization status at all. Section 
III(J)(2) contains strong language against non-for-profits, to say 
nothing of the even less-formal groups of people working on 
projects. Section III(D) also contains provisions which exclude all 
but commercially-oriented concerns.
    To restore competition the settlement must make allowances for 
Open Source organizations--whether formal not-for-profit 
organizations or informal, loosely associated groups of 
developers--to gain access to the same information and 
privileges afforded commercial concerns.
    (B) Deprivation of Ill-Gotten Gains
    Nowhere in the proposed settlement is there any provision to 
deprive Microsoft of the gains deriving from their illegal conduct. 
Go back to the Important Phrase: ``Microsoft is guilty.'' 
In most systems of justice, we punish the guilty. But the current 
proposal offers nothing in the way of punishment, only changes in 
future behavior.
    Currently Microsoft has cash holdings in excess of US$40 
billion, and increases that by more than US$1 billion each month. A 
monetary fine large enough to have an impact on them would be a 
minimum of US$5 billion. Even a fine that large would be a minimal 
punishment. Microsoft's cash stockpile is used, frequently and 
repeatedly, to bludgeon competitors, buy or force their way into new 
markets, or simply purchase

[[Page 28055]]

customers, with the long-term intent to lock people and 
organizations into proprietary software on which they can set the 
price. Taking a ``mere'' US$5 billion from their stockpile 
will have zero effect on this practice.
    For that reason, Microsoft's cash stockpile must be further 
reduced. In addition to the monetary fine, Microsoft should be 
forced to pay shareholders a cash dividend in any quarter in which 
they post a profit and hold cash reserves in excess of US$10 
billion. The dividend should be substantial enough to lower 
Microsoft's cash holdings by US$1 billion, or 10%, whichever is 
greater.
    (C) Prevention of Future Illegal Conduct
    The current proposed settlement allows Microsoft to effectively 
choose two of the three individuals who would provide oversight of 
Microsoft's conduct and resolve disputes. The proposed settlement 
also requires the committee to work in secret, and individuals 
serving on the committee would be barred from making public or 
testifying about anything they learn.
    This structure virtually guarantees that Microsoft will be 
``overseen'' by a do-nothing committee with virtually zero 
desire or ability to either correct Microsoft abuses, or even call 
attention to them.
    Instead of the current proposal, a five-person committee should 
be selected. Microsoft may appoint one person, but will have no 
influence over any of the other four. For the four, two should be 
appointed by the Federal court of jurisdiction, one should be 
appointed by the U.S. Department of Justice, and one should be 
appointed by the U.S. Senate. At least two of the appointees should 
have technical experience and be competent to evaluate technical 
proposals and arguments by themselves, without the filters which 
assistants would bring.
    These are hardly the only thoughtful and reasonable suggestions 
you will no doubt receive regarding the proposed settlement of this 
anti-trust case. And these are hardly the only suggestions which 
should be adopted if the settlement is to prove effective. But all 
of them are essential to that aim, and adopt them you must.
    Thank you for your time and the opportunity to comment.
    Respectfully,
    Michael A. Alderete
    569 Haight Street
    San Francisco, CA 94117
    (415) 861-5758
    [email protected]
    Latest News: 
    Michael A. Alderete
    
    voice: (415) 861-5758



MTC-00027545

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the proposed settlement is bad idea.



MTC-00027546

From: D. Hugh Redelmeier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I will keep my comments brief. I am a software developer and 
consumer, not a lawyer. I will not repeat points that are well 
presented, for example, by the submissions of the American Antitrust 
Institute:
    
    and Dan Kegel:
    
    The proposed final judgment in the US v. Microsoft case is 
inadequate.
    Microsoft has been found to be a monopolist. It has been found 
to have willfully and illegally exploited its monopolies. Microsoft 
has delayed the day of reckoning, multiplying the damage.
    The purpose of the proposed final judgment is to deny Microsoft 
the benefits of its unlawful behavior, to remedy the damage, and to 
prevent future misbehavior. I fail to see how it would substantially 
accomplish any of these goals.
    The fact that several attempts have been made to tame 
Microsoft's illegal behavior suggests that any settlement must be 
carefully crafted to be ``leak-proof''. Speed is of the 
essence in response to future misbehavior--irreparable damage 
can happen much more quickly than litigation can be resolved.
    As far as preventing future misbehavior, it seems to me that 
each monopoly must be eliminated or at least circumscribed to 
prevent its expansion. Microsoft has continually grown its 
monopolies and caused them to buttress one another. It has also used 
its monopolies to advance its other interests.
    I can think of many possible settlements. Perhaps the approach 
most generous to Microsoft would be to break Microsoft up into 
independent companies that each would be allowed to hold a single 
monopoly, and no more. These companies would have to be constrained 
to deal with each other in a way that did not favor them over third 
parties.
    It has been said that there is need for a quick settlement to 
protect our security. Microsoft is the source of a 
disproportionately large number of computer security problems. Most 
believe that this is partly caused by their monopoly position. So if 
security is to be considered in this case, it would be one more 
reason to deal more effectively with the monopoly issues. Security 
is a public interest.
    D. Hugh Redelmeier, PhD.
    [email protected]



MTC-00027547

From: Elizabeth Bonney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    I have endorsed Dan Kegel's letter concerning the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I feel that the letter provides a good 
overview of the problems I see with the settlement, in particular 
the inadequate provisions to limit Microsoft's anticompetitive 
practices towards OEMs. These practices have already limited the 
opportunities of other software vendors, such as Be, Inc., to gain a 
share of the market, and allow Microsoft to avoid competition with 
other vendors based on the merits of their products.
    Elizabeth Bonney,
    Cranford, NJ



MTC-00027549

From: Keith (038) Arlene Varnau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:03am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
7612 140th Place NE
Redmond, WA 98052
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We are sending this letter to express our support of the 
Microsoft settlement. We have followed the lawsuit against Microsoft 
with much interest. It is our opinion that the government was 
unwarranted in its case against Microsoft in the first place. Yet, 
we believe that resolving this issue will help to rebuild the 
technology industries.
    Microsoft has offered many concessions throughout the process. 
Microsoft agrees to the formation of a review board whose purpose 
would be to ensure Microsoft's compliance with the terms of the 
agreement. The formation of this group should reassure those that 
are wary of Microsoft compliance with the issue. The review board 
will be composed of outside members who are objective to the 
outcomes of the settlement.
    We believe that Microsoft has been more than generous throughout 
this process. We hope that the Attorney General agrees with the 
importance of enacting the settlement.
    Thank you for your time regarding this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Keith & Arlene Vernau



MTC-00027551

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing in support of the settlement the justice department 
has reached with Microsoft. It is high time that this petty case, 
brought about by the jealousy of Microsoft's hapless competitors, be 
put behind the nation. Microsoft has consistently been one of the 
greatest technological innovators in the world. Particularly at this 
time of crisis, I believe we should put all our national resources 
to use for the good of the nation. Our greatest national resource is 
the entrepeneurship of men such as Bill Gates. I hope that this saga 
will finaly end with this settlement so that Microsoft can continue 
innovating and improve our lives with new technology.
    Sincerely,
    Elie Poltorak



MTC-00027552

From: Leonard F Morse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:08am

[[Page 28056]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am an IT professional (now retired) and have been in the 
computer field for over 30 years. I urge you to end the DOJ/
Microsoft stand off as soon as possible. The terms already agreed to 
by most parties to the suit are fair and just. Those wanting to 
continue are doing so for their own ends--mostly dislike of the 
Microsoft success, I choose to buy and run Microsoft software 
because it is better, not because it is forced upon me. AOL et al 
are attempting to win in court what they could not win in the market 
place.In addition, the question appears to be moot. AOL purchased 
Netscape yet didnot include it in their latest version of 
AOL--version 7.0--choosing to bundle MS Internet Explorer 
instead.
    The entire affair is little more than a tempest in a teapot
    Leonard F Morse



MTC-00027553

From: George M. Boyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the proposed settlement of Microsoft v DOJ.
    George M. Boyd
    9635 Penfield Ave.
    Chatsworth, CA 91311-5516
    818-349-3974



MTC-00027554

From: Fred Strauss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:14am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am a consumer and I am appalled that the justice department 
may be willing to end this lawsuit by helping Microsoft get richer. 
The biggest problem with Microsoft is that Microsoft has a monopoly 
on which operating system a computer comes with. I would suggest 
that the government force Microsoft to make all of its programs 
available for all other operating systems. Then it would be easy and 
useful for consumers to try other operating systems. This would also 
create some competition for Microsoft, which would help our entire 
economy.



MTC-00027556

From: Brad Matter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern--
    I strongly oppose the proposed terms of settlement in the case 
of United States of America vs. Microsoft, and State of New York ex. 
rel. vs. Microsoft.
    The terms of the settlement are far too weak and do far too 
little to prevent Microsoft from continuing in its pattern of 
unlawful conduct, and do nothing, so far as I can tell, to remedy 
the effects of its past unlawful conduct.
    The terms of the settlement are written with such a degree of 
specificity that they effectively amount to closing the gate after 
the cows are out of the corral. For example, releasing APIs is 
discussed, but there is no mention of file formats--leaving a 
gaping loophole through which Microsoft can drive its monopolistic 
efforts.
    Another gaping loophole is in section III.H.2, which mentions 
``Top-Level Windows''--which are defined as being 
able to hold sub-windows. All Microsoft need do is create a window 
that can't hold a sub-window, or create some 
``innovative'' new windowless technology, and section 
III.H.2 no longer applies.
    In fact, since the settlement fails to address Microsoft's 
future behavior in any meaningful way, it's entirely possible that 
Microsoft may just have some such thing in store via its .NET 
initiative. Given Microsoft's past behavior, I have no doubt that 
future Microsoft ``innovations'' will be specifically 
tailored toward evading the terms of the settlement and that it will 
continue to illegally maintain and extend its monopoly.
    The exclusion of all devices except for very narrowly defined 
``personal computers'' is similarly disquieting.
    Microsoft's conduct over the years has flouted both ethics and 
the law. It gained its monopoly in part through a scheme called 
``per-processor licensing'', in which computer 
manufacturers paid Microsoft for every computer they sold, whether 
it had a Microsoft operating system or not. Microsoft thus 
effectively taxed the computer industry, and made money even when 
someone else's products was sold.
    Ironically, it is harder today to buy a computer with a non-
Microsoft OS than it was when Microsoft stopped the practice as part 
of a consent decree (part of which, if I recall, Microsoft later 
broke). Lately, I've been shopping for a computer for a work-related 
project which requires Windows XP Professional. None of the 
inexpensive computers in my price range come with Windows XP 
Professional, but all come with some flavor of Microsoft operating 
system. It seems absurd that I can't buy a computer without an OS 
and add the OS of my choice to it. In this case, Microsoft gets paid 
twice; once for a product which I can't use. I see nothing in the 
settlement which addresses this problem.
    I've heard some (weak) arguments that Microsoft must be 
interfered with as little as possible because of its alleged 
importance, to the national economy, national security, or both. It 
seems ridiculous to me. An economy in which robust competition 
flourishes is more important than one in which Microsoft flourishes 
at the expense of the innovation and efficiency which are driven by 
that competition.
    The enormous number of ``internet'' worms and viruses 
that make the news on such a regular basis are Microsoft worms, 
written to exploit the weaknesses in Microsoft's software. If 
Microsoft had to compete on the basis of security, those weaknesses 
wouldn't exist. Instead, Microsoft spends its money on activities to 
expand its market share, whether those activities are legal or not.
    I do not see how these actions (and inactions) of Microsoft 
contribute to national security or the economy in any positive 
sense. Acceptance of the settlement as it currently stands will 
simply allow Microsoft to continue to illegally maintain and extend 
its monopoly by working around its weak provisions. Worse, 
acceptance of the settlement will effectively protect Microsoft 
while it does so, since the government is unlikely to take any 
action against Microsoft for the duration of the 5-year period or 
for some years afterward.
    I urge that the settlement be rejected, and that any future 
settlement or judgement against the company not merely bar it from 
practices it no longer needs (Netscape's no longer a threat; after 
the per-processor licensing practice was banned as part of the 
earlier consent decree, a Microsoft executive said that it 
``had achieved its purpose'' and was no longer necessary). 
Any future action must at a minimum truly remedy the harm caused by 
its past unlawful conduct, and effectively prevent it from engaging 
in illegal behavior in the future.
    Ideally, any such judgement or settlement would include 
penalties stiff enough to ensure that the executives at Microsoft 
would get the message any such future behavior would not be 
tolerated. This is a company whose paid ``grass-roots'' 
efforts have included letters from dead people! They don't 
understand ethics, but they do understand power.
    Brad Matter
    1217 NE 70th Street
    Seattle WA 98115-5628
    206.527.8334



MTC-00027557

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I feel the Proposed Final Judgment in the United States v. 
Microsoft case is fundamentally flawed and does little to 
``unfetter [the] market from anticompetitive conduct'', 
fails to terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly, and preserves 
intact countless practices which will maintain and extend the 
Microsoft monopoly in the future. I would also like to add my voice 
to sentiments expressed by Dan Kegel at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html . I strongly support the views Mr. Kegel expresses on 
the proposed settlement.
    This proposed judgment is definitely not in the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Brett Miller



MTC-00027558

From: Mark Plimley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs, As a software engineer and computer professional for 
over 25 years, I believe that I am fully qualified to comment in the 
public interest regarding the proposed Microsoft Anti-trust 
settlement. I have followed the proceedings against Microsoft 
throughout the trial and post-trial period. It continues to amaze me 
the audacity with which the Microsoft Corporation and its'' 
lawyers have flagrantly ignored anti-trust law.
    I feel that one must judge a corporation as one would judge an 
individual, by its actions, not by its words and promises.

[[Page 28057]]

Actions, not words, reflect the true nature of a group or 
individual. Microsoft continues to display disrespect for the laws 
of our nation. The most recent example of this is their extremely 
narrow interpretation of the Tunney Act disclosure requirements, 
violating the intent of the law.
    To this day, Microsoft Corporation refuses to accept 
responsibility for its anti-competitive actions. When an individual, 
or in this case an organization, refuses to correct their anti-
social behavior despite repeated warnings, then society must act to 
prevent such behavior from re-occurring in order to protect itself.
    The DOJ must not back down, for the sake of the public and the 
software industry. Microsoft's claims that severe repremands and 
restrictions would hinder competition is completely absurd. The only 
hope that the software industry has for any semblence of competition 
is to establish stringent and enforceable restrictions on any and 
all future anti-competitive practices by the Microsoft monopoly. The 
settlement that allows Microsoft to donate software and (old) 
computers to schools will only serve to increase their influence 
over the marketplace. This is exactly what Microsoft intends, and 
must be firmly rejected.
    The only type of settlement that should be considered is one 
that genuinely promotes competition in the marketplace. As Microsoft 
has clearly shown that they cannot be trusted to act in the interest 
of anyone except themselves, I believe that a valid settlement can 
only come from those in the industry who have been harmed by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior as a monopolist. If Microsoft 
want to donate computers and software to schools, it must be in the 
form of money without any restrictions whatsoever. The recipients of 
the funds must have total control over what they purchase.
    With ample evidence that their word cannot be trusted, it would 
be irresponsible for the DOJ to consider any Miscrsoft claim of harm 
to the industry if real sanctions were to be imposed upon its 
illegal business practices. The DOJ must not back down on the demand 
for real and effective reform of known monopolist business 
practices. There is plenty of potential competition that will keep 
the software industry healthy, despite any short-term setback by 
Wall Street gamblers.
    So I urge the DOJ, for the sake of the future of the software 
industry and the people of the United States that you represent, to 
insist on effective corrections to the long-standing anti-
competitive practices. And I do not believe Microsoft will respond 
to the seriousness of their business practices with anything except 
harsh punishment. With $65 billion in cash reserves, any reasonable 
punishment will have little impact on their future. And any damage 
to their stock will easily recover in short order. The DOJ must 
maintain the long-term interests of the public ahead of any short-
term harm to investors of an irresponsible corporation.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Plimley, President
    Plimley Consulting, Inc.
    1454 Goldenlake Rd.
    San Jose, CA 95131
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00027559

From: Jay Dernovsek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:23am
Subject: Anti-Trust Remedy
    I find the current remedies for the Microsoft anti-trust 
conviction unacceptable. Please consider the following as 
appropriate action for remedy: Microsoft produces an operating 
system as well as applications that run on its operating system. 
Having inside knowledge of the operating system is a tremendous 
advantage when writing applications. Microsoft abused this advantage 
by witholding key elements of the application program interfaces 
(API's) from competing application writers. As remedy, the operating 
system business should be separated from the application development 
business. Once split, the operating system company should 
furthermore be prohibited from providing information other than its 
published API to any other company. This will insure fair 
competition for all application developers.
    Microsoft's discount policies have made it all but impossible to 
purchase a computer without their operating system. As remedy, 
Microsoft should be made to abolish its present multi-level discount 
practices, and be made to use a single tier discount schedule based 
solely on volume. This will allow hardware manufactures and system 
integrators the option of offering competing products without 
financial penalty.
    Microsoft has used its operating system's dominance to capture 
the office suite, web browser, and other application markets. A 
separation of the operating system and application businesses will 
remedy this abuse. Microsoft has established itself as a major 
content provider (MSN) and has acquired other media holdings such as 
MSNBC. Microsoft also offers a variety of web services, such as 
Hotmail, Passport, etc. Microsoft is creating a dangerous situation 
whereby one entity is attempting to control both information 
(content) and the distribution channels used to convey information. 
As remedy, Microsoft should be made to divest its media holdings and 
Internet businesses, or to form a separate company for such 
activities Microsoft obfuscates the file formats used by its 
business applications.
    These formats are constantly altered, creating a false need to 
upgrade and preventing competing applications from exchanging data. 
This abuse not only stifles competition, but also causes unnecessary 
reduction in productivity. Through their dominance, these file 
formats have become ubiquitous. Since this dominance was acquired 
illegally, Microsoft's file formats should no longer be permitted to 
remain proprietary, and should be turned over to an independent 
standards body. This will allow efficient data exchange, and will 
remedy the unfair advantage Microsoft has created for itself.
    Microsoft abused its monopoly to gain control over commonly used 
protocols and languages by adding proprietary extentions. Their 
contamination of HTML and JAVA are two examples. As a remedy, 
Microsoft must be forced to comply with existing protocol and 
language standards. Furthermore, Microsoft should be prohibited from 
having voting rights is any standards organization as punishment for 
its prior abuse.
    Microsoft has demonstrated a disregard for computer and network 
security. Countless hours of lost productivity can be attributed to 
the weaknesses of Microsoft products. As a remedy, Microsoft should 
made to secure its products without the customary upgrade charges. 
Microsoft should also be held criminally liable for the virus 
propagating nature of Microsoft Outlook. Until their security issues 
are resolved, Microsoft should be banned from providing products or 
services to financial, medical, and government institutions.
    Microsoft has demonstrated a lack of respect for personal 
property and privacy. Their products consistently consume disk space 
with unwanted, unnecessary, and often unused components. Software is 
added without permission or control. System settings (many affecting 
security) are altered without notice. Their operating system is used 
as a billboard for unsolicited advertisement. Their products 
communicate without asking permission. As a remedy, Microsoft must 
be made to understand that computer resources, including disk space, 
are personal property. Uninvited occupation is trespassing. 
Furthermore, strong legislation needs to be passed concerning 
software that makes unauthorized communication, especially for the 
purpose of monitoring personal activity.
    Microsoft has trademarked commonly used words for many of its 
products. Examples include Word, Office, Outlook, Explorer, 
Passport, Windows, etc. They bully other companies who use these 
common words in association with competing products, while ignoring 
other companies that do the same for complimentary products. Most 
businesses cannot afford to gain justice when faced with Microsoft's 
vast legal and financial resources. As remedy, Microsoft should be 
made to replace their common-name trademarks with names that are 
distinctly unique.
    As further punishment for anti-trust, Microsoft should be banned 
from political lobbying and should not be permitted to make 
political contributions of any kind.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Regards,
    Jay Dernovsek
    Madison, Alabama 
CC:[email protected]@ine
tgw



MTC-00027560

From: Andrew Reitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea, because it 
still allows Microsoft plenty of room to continue to operate their 
monopoly. Even more hurtful, however, is that the PFJ (Proposed 
Final Judgement) enhance the ability of other entities to compete 
with Microsoft at the OS level, using Open Source tools such as 
Linux and WINE.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Reitz

[[Page 28058]]

    Recent Graduate, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    [email protected]



MTC-00027561

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 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,
    Kathleen Webb
    3108 E. Sierra St
    Phoenix, AZ 85028



MTC-00027563

From: Galen Seitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the 
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust 
case.
    The proposed settlement is little more than a slap on the wrist. 
This settlement will do little to deter Microsoft's anticompetitive 
practices.
    I urge you to seek stronger remedies.
    Sincerely,
    Galen Seitz
    Senior Engineer
    Seitz & Associates
    Portland, Oregon



MTC-00027564

From: lz b
To: Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inet
gw
Date: 1/28/02 3:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the United States Department of Justice, I am writing to you 
concerning the Microsoft Settlement. I believe that the cause of 
Microsoft having 90 percent of the browser market share is 
obviously, Internet Explorer being included in the Microsoft 
operating system. Therefore, I think that Microsoft should pay 
Netscape a large enough amount of money so that Netscape will be 
reimbursed for the terms they suffered, including a loss of 
customers.
    Yet, this reimbursement will not suffice Netscape to be 
completely prosperous unless Microsoft goes bankrupt with the loss 
of money. Along with the reimbursement, Microsoft should have to 
guarantee that further releases of operating systems will not 
include the Internet Explorer program.
    Sincerely,
    Elizabeth Burstein
    An 8th grade student at the Harker School In San Jose, 
California



MTC-00027565

From: Jeremy Mazner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:42am
Subject: In support of settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As a member of the software development community, and a long 
time computer user, I write to express my firm support for the 
proposed settlement expressed in the Nov 6 Revised Proposed Final 
Judgement.
    Any software developer will tell you that their best work is 
done on the backs of others''. The same holds true in any 
industry--we make advances by building on the current 
generation of technology. It is natural and expected that the 
baseline for any technology continue to evolve. It was a revolution 
in the early 1990's for a consumer operating system to include 
native support for internet protocols like TCP/IP, and that 
revolution enabled an entire new generation of software to be 
written. No longer did an application developer have to worry about 
how their application should communicate with other 
computers--the operating system provided that bsaeline 
functionality, so that the developer could focus on their real 
value-add. Similarly, the inclusion of HTTP and HTML protocols in 
Windows provides a baseline for developers today, making it possible 
to build new categories of applications that leverage the world wide 
web, without having to implement these protocols from scratch every 
time. As a developer, I rely on a robust, evolving platform that I 
know will provide the same baseline services on every computer on 
which my application is installed.
    By way of comparison, can you imagine a home electronics company 
like Sony building products for a world where every house might have 
a different type of electrical service? 110V at 60Hz here, 220V at 
50Hz there, 150V at 80Hv elsewhere. To succeed in mass-marketing 
products, they'd need either a huge variety of power supplies and 
product ``SKUs'' to fit the variety of power services, or 
they'd need to invest research into a universal power supply that 
would work with them all. Either option is a waste of not only 
Sony's time and effort, but of every other company that would sell 
consumer electronics--they'd each have to reinvent the wheel to 
create this universal power supply, and that's money that could have 
been spent on developing new types of products.
    As a computer user, I want the most features I can get for the 
lowest cost. As an advanced user, I appreciate the flexibility to 
add or remove components and change defaults as I see fit, but that 
doesn't mean I don't want a complete, modern, functioning operating 
system out of the box. You'd be hard pressed today to find users who 
don't want access to the internet, email, and instant messaging when 
they turn on their new computer. To suggest that such functions are 
not part of the core operating system is to ignore the evidence of 
today's marketplace, in which not just Microsoft, but Apple and 
RedHat include these functions to satisfy customer demand. I support 
the proposed remedy allowing consumers to remove default 
functionality, but it is non-sensical to suggest that there is no 
benefit to having it there in the first place.
    It is equally non-sensical to suggest that a ``trimmed-
down'' operating system deserves a cheaper price than one with 
the complete complement of functionality. Today's software market 
clearly establishes that ISVs are willing to pay per-unit premiums 
to OEMs to include their applications on new computers. If AOL is 
willing to pay $5 per machine to have its software installed, and 
Real Networks the same, then a ``full-featured'' computer 
with their software should cost $10 less than the trimme-down 
version.
    A version of Windows lacking modern communications features 
would rightly cost more that the deluxe package.
    In the interest of full disclosure, I will note that I am both a 
Microsoft employee and shareholder. My views, however, are my own, 
and do not neccesarily reflect those of my employer and its 
officers. MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your 
photos: Click Here



MTC-00027566

From: Justin M.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    It is going to take more than a slap on the wrist to stop 
Microsoft's anticompetitive actions and undo their consequences. I 
am convinced that the current proposed settlement is no more than 
just that. I do not see any real punishment here for Microsoft. I do 
not see any real opportunity for competitors to jump into the Intel-
compatible operating system market, and I do not see anything that 
takes away the advantage Microsoft has given its products through 
anticompetitive means.
    Described in the competitive impact statement, are parts of the 
Proposed Final Judgment which contain exceptions. I fear that 
Microsoft will find ways to use these exceptions to anticompetitive 
ends. For example, I feel that this proposal does not effectively 
curb Microsoft from using license termination as a threat to OEMs. 
It does not put restrictions on the kind of reasons that can be 
given for license termination, and it does not specify how long 
Microsoft must wait between license termination notices. I am sure 
that if I can find even one such loophole, lawyers can find many 
more.
    I also wonder why only 20 OEM's are protected by this Proposed 
Final Judgment. It concerns me that a creative, smaller company can 
still have it's innovations thwarted by Microsoft's anticompetitive 
practices. More over, if this case is settled with a non-punitive 
arrangement, it will set a precedent that will allow Microsoft and 
other monopolistic bullies to get away with anticompetitive behavior 
DESPITE CONVICTION.

[[Page 28059]]

    This would make the Sherman Act and other antitrust laws 
ineffective, and would be a disservice to the American people.
    Let's prove that the American justice system cannot be swayed by 
even the most powerful and richest individuals and corporations. 
This is what the Sherman Act and antitrust laws were written for.
    Signed,
    Jennifer Baer and Justin Montejano



MTC-00027567

From: Rob Terrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a professional in the computer business for over 20 
years. I'm not some anti-Microsoft zealot; I use Microsoft software 
on a daily basis, as I have for years. However, Microsoft's market 
power makes it very nearly impossible for smaller companies, 
companies where true innovation arises, to compete in a meaningful 
way. The proposed settlement does nothing to protect our smaller 
companies against Microsoft's monopoly.
    Technology is a malleable, shapeshifting thing. Any behavioral 
remedies that apply to technology can be easily coded around, the 
same way Microsoft was able to code around physical hardware 
limitations, such as the 640k limit. I feel that a structural remedy 
is the only thing that can level the playing field.
    Thanks for listening,
    Rob Terrell



MTC-00027568

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:56am
Subject: [Fwd: Microsoft Settlement]
    Respected Members of the U.S Justice Department.
    For some time I have watched the Antitrust case of several U.S 
states vs Microsoft with hope, trepidation and sometimes dismay. As 
a technologist for over a decade I have observed the tactics 
Microsoft has employed to maintain it's dominant market position 
often at the expense of business.
    It seems to me that these enteprises have to pay a 
``Microsoft Tax'' and in return, innovation and 
competition is stiffled. This is surely a development America and 
her corporate citizens can ill afford to allow continue. I beleive 
that the point has been reached where Microsoft has become a burden 
to the information economy, and an appropriate settlement must be 
reached. I believe a break up of the company would serve little or 
no purpose as the real issue is Microsoft's behaviour and strategies 
focused on leveraging market share through control of innovations by 
restricting vendor freedom. A settlement that benefits the I.T 
industry by re-introducing competition, will create a stimulus in 
the economy as a result of freedom of choice. I reason that such a 
settlement will also benefit Microsoft by creating change within the 
corporation.
    These practises must stop for the information economy to evolve 
and such mechanisms for acheiving this may include:
    1. Publish Interfaces and standards.
    An end the Microsoft (MS) practice of ``embracing and 
extending'' method of aquiring ownership of publicly owned 
protocols. This could be acheived by requiring MS to publish the 
extensions to file formats, software interfaces and communications 
formats on implementation of a software component. It is this 
behavoir that threatens to uproot the Open Systems Interconnect 
model that is the foundation for the information economy.
    2. Defensive only Legal and contractual restrictions Prevent MS 
from using aggressive patents, lawsuits and non-disclosure 
agreements to restrict innovation. These tactics used against 
vendors and particularly volunteer computer programers and computer 
scientists destroy enterprise and opportunity within the information 
industry.
    As an Australian citizen I respectfully ask you consider my 
contribution as a friend of the American people. Your decisions will 
have internationl ramifications and I would hope these suggestions 
provide you with some useful insight.
    John Mifsud
    Terrigal Australia
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00027569

From: Zachary Weinberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir,
    I write to express my concerns with the proposed settlement. I 
do not believe that the Proposed Final Judgement as it stands will 
have any significant effect on Microsoft's anti-competitive 
practices. I'd like to endorse Dan Kegel's open letter and analysis 
of the PFJ, which you may find at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html and http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html 
respectively.
    Thank you,
    Zachary Weinberg
    Software Consultant, CodeSourcery LLC
    Berkeley, CA



MTC-00027570

From: Shane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to make a comment regarding the Microsoft Anti-
Trust case.
    For years I have been working with computers, at home and at 
work. I see the importance of computers, the trends in technology 
and understand the role of consumers in it all. Without a doubt, I 
believe that Microsoft has helped hundreds of millions of people 
throughout the world. The amount of good they have produced is un-
measurable. I have watched and read about the Anti-Trust cases and 
see that every accusation is a lie. They don't hurt consumers, 
consumers are not complaining, corporations who aren't good enough 
to prevail in the market place are complaining. It's obvious that 
their attacks on Microsoft have hidden agendas other than their goal 
of helping consumers since it's ridiculous to say that Microsoft has 
hurt them. Every legal trick is being used against them; millions 
are being wasted on court costs. All because Netscape Navigator 
isn't better than Internet Explorer, all because Microsoft gave it 
away for free and tries to offer consumers everything they need to 
run a computer in one package. If Microsoft loses this case, this 
will be one of the most underestimated atrocities of the century. 
The attack of the good for being good. The denial of property 
rights. The lose of freedom. All and much more that cannot and 
should not happen. Justice eventually always prevails,
    I hope it happens soon.
    SHANE E STAATS
     
[email protected]



MTC-00027571

From: Frank Warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been involved with PC's since the first Altair. 
Microsoft's list of abuses, criminal and civil violations, and 
outright piracy, are legend within the industry. The proposed 
settlement does not address the illicit profits that have been made 
through such piracy, theft of intellectual property, or extortionate 
methods of acquiring and crushing innovation in the industry.
    Microsoft has spent the last 22 years planning, and then 
implementing, the dismemberment of one firm after another, and 
getting away with it. Microsoft is a killer whale, whose attack on 
the body of the industry is to be answered with a band-aid.
    The original plan of your department to break Microsoft apart 
would have helped, and demonstrated that pirates cannot thrive just 
because they become rich at it.
    Microsoft has pillaged, plundered and raped the entire industry. 
More, their .NET plans shows that they do not intend to stop. Now 
they want to own the Internet itself.
    Withdraw the offer of this settlement if you expect any of us to 
obey any of your laws.
    Sincerely,
    Wilson Franklin Warren
    Livermore, California 94550



MTC-00027572

From: Arun Rao
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    I would like to put forth my opinion that the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement does not prevent Microsoft from using its monopoly of 
desktop operating systems to further its ventures into other 
markets. The settlement does not punish microsoft for its illegal 
activities.
    Microsoft has slowly begun its transition from a desktop PC 
software provider to enterprise, consumer devices and service 
provider company. The proposed settlement doesn't prevent Microsoft 
from utilizing its 95% desktop pc market share to push its monopoly 
into other areas such as internet services. Microsoft's .NET is such 
a service, which microsoft is using its latest version Windows XP to 
push into the market.
    Microsoft has broken the law and been found guilty. Microsoft 
has hurt consumers by removing, the very fundamentals of a free

[[Page 28060]]

market economy, choice. Consumers can never truly obtain fair prices 
for services with out competition. Microsoft has crushed competition 
using its power, the power of its monopoly. Many companies have gone 
bankrupt and many more will eventually because they cannot penetrate 
a Microsoft dominated market. This will eventually hurt consumers 
more.
    I implore you to reconsider the settlement and opt for a 
judgement that will provide, consumers and the companies that have 
been hurt by Microsoft's illegal acts, justice.
    Sincerely,
    Arun Rao



MTC-00027573

From: Nick Banfe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    UI am writing in regard to the Micosoft settlement. I am a 
concerned citizen, Silicon Valley
    .Comer and I am apaulled at the judgement.
    This amounts to nothing more then momopoly and fixing.
    Nick Banfe
    1716 Morgan Street
    Mountain View, CAl 94043
    (650) 964-6425
    Sincerely,
    Nick Banfe



MTC-00027574

From: Jon Hutchinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This whole suit is frivolous, was just brought about as a 
sideshow to distract the public from the real corruption that had 
been going on in the White House and parts of the Federal Government 
in the later part of the last decade.
    It all should all be thrown out immediately, as it has directly 
or indirectly affected the economy, in an adverse way, and the 
thousands of investors who have invested in a great and innovative 
American company like Microsoft.
    Jon Hutchinson
    Seattle, WA



MTC-00027575

From: Calvin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the settlement agreement reached between the 
United States Justice Department and Microsoft to settle the 
antitrust case won by the United States of America.
    The settlement will not increase competition in any market where 
Microsoft has a major offering. In markets where it has a monopoly, 
such as operating systems and business applications, it will only 
serve to strengthen it's monopoly. This reduces competition in other 
markets where Microsoft may choose to compete because of the 
advantage the monopoly provides.. This is what the Antitrust act was 
creaated to prevent.
    Nothing in the agreeement will insure that other companies or 
individuals will have an equal opportunity to bring improved 
products to market because Microsoft will still control the 
operating system, the business applications and now, the browser. 
Improvements in web development can be stifled by Microsofts 
bundling of the browser to eliminate competition in that market. 
Future bundling or application tieing is not covered in the 
settlement if it is not related to an OEM contract.
    In particutlar, web developers are now beholden to Microsoft to 
insure their software and services will work on most computers. At a 
whim, Microsoft can easily disable those developers offerings if it 
wants to offer it's own services or products by simply modifying the 
browser, operating system, or business applications to give a 
preference to the Microsoft offering. Microsoft can do this after an 
OEM sale of it's operating system when XP or future operating 
systems must register and receive an authorization so that they will 
function.
    By the time legal action can be taken against Microsoft to 
prevent this activity, the damage to competing companies and 
individuals is already done. Not unlike what happened to Netscape 
after Microsoft tied Internet Explorer to it's operating system.
    Additionally, Microsoft was found guilty of violating the 
Sherman Antitrust Act. The settlement contains no punishment for 
Microsofts illegal behavior. If this crime has no punishment, why is 
it a law? If Microsoft violates the settlement agreement, it will 
only result in further litigation, but not in any punishement.
    I believe a much harsher penalty, such as breaking the company 
into smaller competing companies to increase competition in the 
market would provide a much better remedy to Microsofts illegal 
behavior and would benefit the economy generally by increasing 
comepetition.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Calvin Tolman
    software and content developer
    721 E 300 S
    Salt Lake City UT 84102
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00027576

From: mothership
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 4:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to disagree with the micro soft decision as I think 
it would hinder anyone who wants otouse the internet...
    Bruce Vasconcellos...
    Fiji



MTC-00027577

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Remarks on the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust 
case. This piece is not comprehensive, but the analytical and 
historical points I make apply to most aspects of the problem. Among 
the different classes that are impacted by the Microsoft monopoly 
are the classes that buy Microsoft as consumers, producers and 
vendors. I contend that these direct victims are not its principal 
victims.
    I identify three principal classes of victims:
    1) Those (such as myself) engaging or aspiring to engage in 
Microsoft-free microcomputing.
    2) Those through choice of employer, authority, supplier, 
customer, or other outside relation or agency are compelled to work 
with Microsoft products. These people suffer contact with inferior 
products and the spiritual stress of contact with an enterprise 
whose ``business model'' is founded on the stifling of 
human cooperation and technical advance.
    (It is disgraceful that children should be exposed to Microsoft 
Windows in schools; this kind of publicly sanctioned exposure is 
harmful to their education and to their moral development).
    3) The General Public.
    I write primarily on behalf of Microsoft-free microcomputing and 
to a large extent for the General Public and the national interest.
    This response is organized in the following manner:
    1) What is an Operating System, and what Microsoft has converted 
it into.
    2) How is this monopoly harmful and dangerous?
    a) Economic costs of Microsoft's monopoly
    b) Supposed costs of remedies
    c) Broader costs and dangers
    3) Why the proposed remedies are either useless or counter-
productive.
    4) Some recommendations for remedy.
    1) What is an Operating System, and what Microsoft has converted 
it into.
    The Operating System (OS) is a system of programs that runs the 
computing machinery, placing the machinery under a unified control 
so that it can service the other programs (the ``jobs'') 
running on the computer and regulate their contention for resources. 
The OS provides programs with an environment and a set of standards 
for accessing that environment. Programs are ordinarily written to 
the environment provided by the OS, not directly to the machinery.
    Microsoft does not share the ``naive'' view of a 
computer held by entrepreneurs, workers, scientists, engineers, 
programmers, students, or ordinary users, viz., of a computer as a 
machine for extending and multiplying capabilities. Microsoft sees 
computers as something for which access can be restricted and 
ransomed for profit, and sees the operating system as a particularly 
strategic chokepoint. To Microsoft, a computer is not an engine, but 
a venue for selling applications. In this view, computer 
capabilities do not flow from Microsoft, they are withheld by 
Microsoft and released in restrictive form.
    ``MS-Windows--the Inextricable DOS''
    MS-Windows is a computer program effecting the illegitimate and 
technically unnatural integration of non-operating system 
functionality into the OS for the sole purpose of fortifying and 
extending Microsoft's MS-DOS monopoly. (In the current DMCA 
vernacular, some might call it ``an anticompetition 
device.''). MS-Windows is designed to ensure 1) that competing

[[Page 28061]]

operating environments (e.g., Geoworks, Quarterdeck, HP) will not be 
viable on a Microsoft platform, 2) that the degree of control 
exercised by Microsoft over applications will be greater than that 
which would be possible in DOS, and 3) that the operating system, 
operating environment, user interface, and application programs will 
be so entangled as to deliberately block the government from being 
able to separate them (separation is a necessary step in the type of 
approach that the governments are now pursuing). By blurring these 
boundaries, Microsoft creates a burden-barrier to economic 
evaluation, law enforcement, industry, competitors, and government 
regulators. Thus, any application running on MS-Windows that 
Microsoft covets, it has the power to appropriate.
    Poor security was already a hallmark of Microsoft Operating 
System, but it is a necessary by-product of the attempt to create a 
monopoly-application posing as an operating system because of the 
artificial integration of the application-level (``user 
space'') with the operating system. (A significant share of the 
economic damages caused by Microsoft is attributable to its faulty 
security).
    It is not really possible to write a good system that runs on a 
bad operating system. When the Operating System overwrites memory 
locations or crashes without recovery, the application suffers. A 
large portion of the resources of the development process must be 
diverted to ``defensive programming'', an attempt to 
protect the integrity of the program and data from the defects of 
its running environment, an attempt which can only be partly 
successful at best.
    2) HOW is this monopoly harmful and dangerous?
    2a) Economic costs of Microsoft's monopoly
    In 1983, the issue may have been Microsoft overcharging 
customers. At that time, the spectacle of Microsoft selling a badly 
broken Operating System and charging its victims for the repairs 
dominated the scene.
    By 1984, Microsoft's monopoly was the central problem facing 
microcomputing. IBM-Microsoft was harming: 1) Digital Research, the 
leading low-end operating system 2) hardware manufacturers and 
vendors designing or selling non-compatible systems 3) software 
companies. Microsoft's variant of DOS, ruthlessly extended by the 
creation of Windows was designed to trap customers into their 
proprietary closed ``Microsoft market'' As long as their 
software is incompatible with acceptable norms and established 
standards, technical, commercial and legal, their customer-victims 
will have to follow them to whatever computer platform and network 
site that Microsoft chooses.
    An assessment of the costs to the economy of the Microsoft 
monopoly must include the enormous resources that were diverted to 
dealing with problems that existed only as a result of programming 
in the Microsoft environment, e.g., the years of 640KB limit, 
``expanded and extended memory'', inability to share 
peripherals because of a single-user limitation. These difficulties, 
tied exclusively to the Microsoft environment, added directly to the 
cost of development, linked software to transient problems, and were 
a barrier-to-entry, preventing programs from being written, products 
from being delivered on time, etc.
    Microsoft has been able to work with some manufacturers to 
create computer peripherals that have deliberately had vital parts 
removed so that they cannot function except with the 
antidote--the matching version of the Microsoft Windows 
Operating System. These crippled machines (many names including 
winmodems, winprinters) have introduced much uncertainty into the 
buying process, making purchases much more difficult, the end result 
much inferior even for those able to run these mutilated devices and 
the life expectancy of the equipment diminished as they are now 
wholly dependent on the version of MS-Windows.
    The operating system defines the environment for software 
development. If the OS is replaced, the software will often not be 
portable.
    2b) Supposed costs of remedies
    Contrary to the impression of those outside the field, 
Microsoft's creativity has thus far been restricted to how to hold, 
strengthen and extend the monopoly it was given. The cost of 
dropping Microsoft is far from great because it is a hollow system 
that has never had the stability to allow programming, so few 
programs of long-term values have been written. Microsoft uproots 
its customers anyway as part of a business cycle posing as a product 
cycle, so there is effectively no cost to uprooting the system.
    The question is not whether we are better off with Microsoft and 
today's computers than without Microsoft but with the computers 
before the IBM PC. Nor is it a choice of the chaos of freedom with 
incompatible zones of products versus the ``order'' of one 
dominant zone triumphant, albeit wholly incompatible with all others 
and unable to change. At every stage there were better alternatives 
and economic losses should be measured against contemporary 
alternatives. Superior alternatives that were driven off the field 
by Microsoft succumbed to monopoly power and not superior quality or 
lesser costs. The value of the choice to the decision maker was not 
based on technical merit but rather on permission to participate in 
a closed market.
    The ``network effect'' here is not primarily a 
concomitant of the number of applications. That is a secondary cause 
of a more fundamental strategy of creating a network of captive 
users. The ``network effect'' is the number of captive 
users. Microsoft's market and its product are the network of 
customer-victims. The operating system is the chain that binds that 
network. This would not be the case with an open operating system, 
it is a consequent of deliberate artificial restrictions.
    A cursory look at Microsoft's advertisements reveals what it 
thinks are its strongest assets.
    1) Microsoft offers vendors and developers access to this large 
market. It is made to appear as if Microsoft were providing a 
service by building a market and making it accessible to commerce; 
in point of fact, Microsoft's role is to build a virtual wall and 
provide conditional entry on both sides of the gate, i.e., 
restricted access to the market and from the market.
    2) Microsoft sells its business and marketing power. They say, 
``join our Program X (on their unfavorable terms) and we will 
include you in our profit world, providing contacts and 
customers.''
    2c) Broader costs and dangers.
    MICROSOFT HAS PREVENTED SOFTWARE FROM BEING DEVELOPED, BY 
CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF THE SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENT. A stable 
platform is a pre-condition for long-lasting software, and the long 
operational life of the software amortizes the development costs. 
THE MICROSOFT MONOPOLY ABORTED THE BIRTH OF AN AMERICAN SOFTWARE 
INDUSTRY (on the low end of computing). Indeed, the benefits of the 
special laws written to encourage the healthy growth of that 
industry have been reaped by the main forces set against its 
development.
    The development of the ``personal computer'' has been 
greatly retarded by its diversion to the dead-end of the single-user 
system.
    A ``personal computer'' is in the first place a 
microcomputer. The same microcomputer is personal if used by one 
person in that way, and a group machine if used by a 
``group''. With a multi-user operating system, different 
accounts can be set up and used concurrently, whether by a single 
person or a group of persons. Timesharing has been the norm in 
computing since the mid-nineteen-sixties; Microsoft is decades 
behind the industry. Compare the processor speed and memory of a 486 
to a PDP-11! MS-DOS and MS-Windows are hopelessly 
uncompetitive on price/performance with multi-user DOS and Unix-like 
systems. (In a January 2002 column in ComputerWorld, Nicholas 
Petreley details how the latest version of MS-Windows is still sub-
minimal in its ability to allow multiple users to function 
concurrently).
    Computers are a technology that is inherently adaptable to 
personal styles of work. Microsoft has designed a system imposing a 
uniformity that undermines the liberating promise of this 
technology.
    Not all software is an endpoint; software can be built on other 
software, e.g., customized macros. All of this is lost in the 
Microsoft environment. Microsoft is transience. The transience of 
Microsoft makes the solution of the problem before you relatively 
easy, since abolishing Microsoft will not hurt secondary 
developments. Old programs will not be lost--Microsoft has 
already robbed its victims of any programs and experience they might 
have developed through time. (In contrast, the UNIX and VMS programs 
that I wrote since 1982 are still usable today. The investment in 
learning UNIX and in writing for UNIX is still amortizable, and will 
continue to be good for decades to come.)
    The Proposed Final Judgment shows no cognizance of the 
breakthrough in computing in the 1980's that multiplies the 
potential for programs to build on other programs. The Free Software 
Movement is revolutionizing the organization of computing and the 
potential values of computers.

[[Page 28062]]

    The PFJ exhibits a parochial view that ignores that the world at 
large will be building its computer infrastructure on free software 
implementing open standards.
    With respect to the two principal classes of victims: those 
working outside that closed market, and humanity as a whole, which 
has suffered multi-trillion dollar losses. The solution should not 
be inclusion in that market, because that Microsoft-dominated market 
is qualitatively inferior. The solution is the dissolution of that 
market and the migration to other, superior markets.
    It is anticipated that the 21st century will experience 
``Cyber Wars.'' Machines using Microsoft Windows are 
especially vulnerable and will be attacked. Every part of American 
life that relies on these systems will be placed in jeopardy by such 
an attack.
    MS-DOS and MS-Windows are not secure. Every machine that 
is running such a system and is connected externally by network is 
vulnerable to attack. There is a multiplicity of vulnerabilities 
involved. It is common knowledge that Microsoft has a backdoor built 
into Windows-- that means that Microsoft has built a means of 
external entry into Microsoft Windows; any program employing the 
entry sequence has complete control over the machine. Microsoft 
Windows is architecturally unsound and insecure--once breached, 
too much of the system is exposed; application programs run with too 
much power over the system. Microsoft has designed Windows to spy on 
its customer-victims (e.g., to survey non-Microsoft products and to 
verify licenses); these features can be ``cracked'' and 
exploited by non-Microsoft attackers as well.
    An Internet Service Provider can read and store all traffic 
passing through its system. Control over ISPs gives Microsoft access 
not only to the work of their customers, but to all the email sent 
by their customers to innocent third parties. This power plus the 
power to read all networked machines running Windows adds up to a 
greater power than either taken severally.
    As the world's citizens begin to employ higher quality, non-
Microsoft systems that express true American values, our 
technological, industrial and military superiority will fade. 
(Already the export of Microsoft products to foreign markets is 
damaging the reputation of U.S.-made goods).
    3) Why the proposed remedies are either useless or counter-
productive. Many of Microsoft's improper and criminal activities 
have been exposed and addressed in prior cases. This proposed remedy 
and this proposed settlement offer a woefully inadequate structural 
framework for addressing these problems. Any analysis of how 
Microsoft expanded its monopoly and responded to previous failed 
attempts at correction would be sufficient to show that Microsoft 
has shown itself immune to these remedies.
    Since an unambiguous specification of the system is not feasible 
given even the best intentions, it is always possible to claim 
compliance with the Decree while maintaining effective 
incompatibility.
    A computer in a networked environment should not be considered 
personal. If Microsoft's market is defined as personal computers, 
the court will miss its mark. Microsoft is moving its market to the 
network, where the environment will be rental license-enforcing, 
insecure and privacy violating. Microsoft is able to tap and control 
computers running Microsoft Operating Systems owned by government, 
business, religious and non-governmental organizations, schools, 
research establishments, accounting and law firms, medical 
practices, and private individuals and families.
    A secret OS and secret applications are able to work together 
secretly. MS-Windows can store information anywhere without the 
knowledge of the user. The OS has access to everything on the 
system. If encryption is done with software that Microsoft can 
identify, the OS can copy the plaintext that is being encrypted; and 
vice versa for the decryption.
    In the absence of general legislation regulating the use of, and 
providing for inspection of, all source-secret software sold to the 
public and used by the government, the court must make decisions on 
how to counter this threat when exercising its supervisory power in 
cases such as this, where such software can be used in violation of 
antitrust laws.
    The objective should not be minor adjustments to the profit-
imbalance that exists for producers in that market. It is that 
closed market itself that should be the objective of the antitrust 
forces. THE AIM SHOULD BE THE MIGRATION OF TRAPPED CUSTOMERS OUT OF 
THE MARKET. This Proposed Final Judgment allows Non-Disclosure 
Agreements (NDAs). These agreements have been used by elements of 
the computer industry to circumvent (First Amendment) freedoms and 
to manipulate affairs to cover up information perceived by them as 
potentially damaging to them and to suppress progress.
    4) Some recommendations for remedy.
    It is critical for the remedies in the cases that have been and 
will be filed against Microsoft to define the monopoly in terms of 
the customer base and the software, not solely in terms of the 
hardware. Microsoft was not a computer manufacturer prior to the 
Xbox (peripherals aside). Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position on 
``personal computer'' or ``Intel-compatible''-
based microcomputers, and that monopoly needs to be addressed. 
Failure to acknowledge and address the other end of the monopoly (or 
the other monopolies) will mean that neither the discourse, nor the 
remedial action, will be able to track Microsoft across changes of 
hardware to handheld, ``game computers'', embedded 
devices, cable television and set-top boxes, assaults on the 
Internet and telecommunications, copyright enforcement, and the 
Microsoft charity racket, and extortion operations that rely on 
privacy violations and access to computers and Internet packets.
    Compatibility with previous versions must be demanded and 
enforced. Programs written for a given version will be broken by 
revision (called by Microsoft ``Service Packs''). When 
software is changed, the system often breaks. So-called 
``upgrades'' need to be rigorously backward compatible to 
avoid this. Customers do not want their working environment and 
their archives made unreliable or unusable by these forced 
purchases.
    The file formats, communications protocols, interfaces and any 
other related material that is necessary to the migration of data 
tied to any application needs to be available to competing products 
and any other program for any purpose. It should be published and 
disclosed in full, at once and maintained for each revision on a 
timely, ongoing and accurate basis. Such disclosure must be in a 
form where anyone can access this material outside of Microsoft's 
knowledge, and with full indemnification from any so-called 
``intellectual property'' issues. The interfaces and 
formats, like the ``look-and-feel'' are not the product, 
and should be considered as public domain, not as proprietary. The 
restrictions in the PFJ III. D and E are completely unacceptable; 
they are counter to the goals of the judgment. The goal should 
include that authors or companies engaged in developing conversion 
programs or products, in whole or in part, or providing such 
programs or services will be free to do so without any debt, royalty 
or obligation to Microsoft, its subsidiaries or partners. It is 
imperative to address boot problems such as mandating that Microsoft 
will not require a particular sector, partition, or drive and 
possibly providing penalties for interference by Microsoft with 
installation of other systems, for example, by erasing or destroying 
the integrity of other partitions.
    Copyright the screen?
    In the appeal of this very case, Microsoft claims that because 
they copyrighted the appearance of their product's image, they 
should be able to prevent the owner of the screen from displaying a 
related image. Please consider the clear implications of this 
ownership argument for all the other copyrighted screen images in 
the world.
    Following the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Red Cross 
had to put out a call for Microsoft licenses. It should be made 
clear to everyone in the world that license restrictions have no 
force in emergencies. Attempts by companies such as Microsoft to put 
automatic license enforcement into software can potentially result 
in death, possibly on a large-scale.
    On remedy by disclosure of API's:
    Microsoft programmers in other parts of the company have access 
to these critical details in advance of their competitors and can 
influence the design decisions. A wall of separation is a necessity, 
so that no internal or privileged communications occur. (See for 
example Network Solutions, Inc. where such a wall has been created 
between the registration of domain names and the database 
implementation. (I have no knowledge of whether this has proven 
successful, but I cite it as a precedent for this approach, perhaps 
worthy of investigation.)) Microsoft has the sole power to decide 
and effect changes. One of the central problems in software 
maintenance is the cost of changed designs, including interfaces. In 
particular, this is a major concern of the area known as 
``Object-Oriented Programming'' (committing to an 
interface is considered by some authors as a ``contract'' 
between the

[[Page 28063]]

programmer/designer and the user of the program interface). Computer 
programs are best written by individuals or small teams. In any 
large project, and Microsoft Windows is one of the largest, no 
programmer or manager can comprehend or control the situation, even 
with full access and authority. There are multiple versions, some 
written specifically for individual OEMs and clients (and doctored 
versions submitted to courts), and multiple revisions. The 
capability of even Microsoft to find what it wants and effect 
changes that it wants is costly and limited. This is further 
compounded not only by the complications resulting from proven 
misconduct but by the quality of Microsoft's design, programming and 
development environment. An inspector or team of inspectors 
appointed by the Court would have limited capabilities even under 
the dubious assumption of a willing and helpful host.
    Make sure that inspectors are not limited to read-only access. 
The rules of engagement must include the ability to copy, modify and 
test the programs in whole or in part, in special environments and 
in conjunction with any programs immunized from all licensing 
restrictions. Non-disclosure agreements have been used to neutralize 
critics, by exposing them to material covered by the NDA.
    Divest all Internet-related holdings including UUNet, Spyglass 
and hotmail. Terminate the NCSA Mosaic license to Spyglass.
    The proposed final judgment focuses too narrowly on the motive 
of large profits in its analysis of the dynamics of the computer 
market. Most authors of books, articles, music, poetry, and computer 
programs do not have such an expectation, and are thus not motivated 
by it. The force of not-for-profit work in computers is an 
indisputable fact. (The Internet was built by volunteers). This 
Judgment threatens to strangle these great creative forces.
    I urge all actors in this case to exercise the options under the 
Tunney Act and withdraw the proposed settlement.
    Michael E. Smith
    [email protected]



MTC-00027577--0008

From: Joe Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been following the Microsoft Antitrust case with great 
interest. As a consumer, I find myself very much at the mercy of 
Microsoft's monopoly power. When I shop for a computer, I see only 
one brand of software available pre-installed--Microsoft. Email 
attachments I receive are often in file formats that can only be 
read by Microsoft software. I have felt like a captive of this 
juggernaut for years, and I fear the future holds more of the same.
    When I learned that Microsoft had been found guilty of anti-
competitive use of their monopoly power, I was encouraged. I looked 
forward to seeing them punished for their illegal actions, and 
restrained from repeating them in the future. I was very 
disappointed to read the proposed settlement. There appears to be no 
significant penalty for the past abuse of their monopoly power. I 
saw only the mildest of restrictions, aimed at industry conditions 
of the past rather than of the future. Microsoft keeps all the 
fruits of their past criminal behavior, and there is no incentive 
not to behave as arrogantly in the future as they have in the past. 
The provisions are cleverly drawn, so as to leave Microsoft plenty 
of room for evasive maneuvers. Interestingly enough, they are also 
worded so as to deny any relief to developers of open source 
software, which Microsoft has acknowledged as the greatest remaining 
threat to their dominance of the software industry.
    The stock price told the story. It was not significantly 
affected by publication of the proposed settlement. The industry 
recognized that it would have little impact. An adequate settlement 
should have some impact on Microsoft's business, and this is not an 
outcome to be feared. Exposing the perpetual windfall that is 
Microsoft to the pressures of normal competition will be a good 
thing for the economy as a whole.
    I would look for two things in any acceptable settlement. First, 
penalties that punish past abuse, and then restrictions to prevent 
future abuse. Many possible measures would serve both objectives.
    Consider the following:
    1.) Make Microsoft publish all of their proprietary file formats 
and communication protocols immediately. Specify harsh penalties if 
they are inaccurate or incomplete in publishing these. They should 
be required to drop all proprietary extensions to industry standards 
from their Web development software, except for such extensions 
which are accepted by a majority of competitors in the industry 
within a reasonable time after their publication.
    2.) Void all exclusive or restrictive agreements with PC vendors 
which impose any financial or other penalty, direct or indirect, for 
including competitors'' application software or for selling 
PC's loaded with other operating systems. Prohibit such agreements 
in the future.
    3.) Require Microsoft to strip XP of all bundled applications 
for which established competitors offer free versions of an 
alternative. They are repeating in the multi-media player software 
market the exact same conduct for which they were just convicted in 
the Internet Browser market.
    4.) Consider dividing the company, but not in the way most often 
proposed. The link between operating system and applications has 
been exploited so thoroughly that the damage cannot practically be 
undone, but the link between software and the delivery of services 
and content has not yet been exploited to the same extent. Require 
Microsoft to spin off all software development operations, 
separating them from the services and content portion of their 
business.
    Appoint monitors at each resulting unit to enforce their 
independence from each other. Alternatively, consider regulating 
them as a monopoly, just like a utility. Control their prices, and 
supervise the quality of their service, for the benefit of 
consumers.
    The consistent pattern of Microsoft's behavior in the past is a 
fair way to predict future behavior. Unchecked, they can be expected 
to use anti-competitive measures in their efforts to dominate the 
markets they are entering now and chose to enter in the future. I 
would say to the court that you have an unrepentant law breaker in 
your hands, a repeat offender. Deal with them severely.
    Thank you for considering my comments.
    Jonathan Martin
    Mobile, AL



MTC-00027579

From: John Giannandrea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:52am
Subject'' Microsoft Settlement
Attached in HTML and Plain text.
http://www.meer.net/j g/doj--comments.html
[email protected]
Comments on the Revised Proposed Final Judgment
http://www.meer.net/ig/doi comments.html
John Giannandrea, Independent Software Developer,
Formerly ('94-'99) Chief Technologist in the Internet Browser group 
at Netscape/AOL
Summary
    After reviewing the Revised Proposed Final Judgment, the 
Competitive Impact Statement, the May 18th 1998 Antitrust complaint 
together with the findings of the District Court and the Court of 
Appeals I submit that the Proposed Final Judgment fails to describe 
effective remedies for Microsoft's illegal activities.
    An effective Final Judgment would prevent recurrence of the 
illegal behavior and provide relief and protection for independent 
software developers to develop innovative new middle-ware products 
and compete with Microsoft in the market for Windows software. The 
terms of this Final Judgment will not achieve this result because it 
is seriously flawed.
    These comments briefly describe the following problems with the 
Proposed Final Judgment:
    1. Problems with the scope of the remedy
    2. Shortcomings in the OEM configuration provisions
    3. Loopholes and technical shortcomings with the wording of the 
judgment
    4. Restrictive language related to Intellectual Property.
    5. Problems with the term and proposed implementation
    6. Flaws in several of the definitions
    Taken together I believe these flaws in Proposed Final Judgment 
make it an inappropriate remedy for the illegal behaviors found by 
the Court of Appeals. While changing some of the specific wording of 
the Final Judgment and removing some of the loopholes will make it 
stronger, on balance it is a wholly inappropriate remedy for the 
ongoing harm done by Microsoft in protecting and extending its 
Windows monopoly.
    [email protected]
    January 27th, 2002.

[[Page 28064]]

    1. Problems with the scope of the remedy
    There are several problems with the scope of the proposed 
remedies which are likely to make it ineffective in practice. The 
Final Judgment does not correct the harm done to the marketplace 
today by Microsoft's existing software products, nor address the 
issue of backwards compatibility and harm done to the market by 
ongoing changes (``upgrades''). Nor does the Final 
Judgment address the crucial issue of APIs in Microsoft middle-ware 
products themselves, as opposed to APIs in the Windows Operating 
System Product.
    1.1 What products fall under the proposed remedy?
    Sections III.D, III.E and III.H limit the practical effects of 
the Final Judgment to some future versions of Microsoft's latest 
operating system product (WindowsXP, SP1) or 12 months from 
submission of the Final Judgment. This will not provide effective 
remedy for the actual installed base of Windows users, of which 
WindowsXP remains a small minority. Microsoft's monopoly position 
is, and will be for the length of the initial proposed term, made up 
of Windows2000, WindowsME, Windows98 and Windows95 products and 
their associated middle-ware product lines. It is in these products 
that harm is and was being caused by the illegal activities. For the 
Final Judgment to be effective in providing relief, the 
communications protocol and Windows API disclosures need to apply to 
the actual installed base of Windows. It is no more technically 
difficult for Microsoft to document current APIs than it is to do so 
in future products.
    The final paragraph of III.H limits the proposed remedies to 
middle-ware as defined by a timeline relative to the release of new 
Windows operating system products. The reality is that the illegal 
conduct relates to all existing and past Microsoft middle-ware 
products, and the release of future versions of Windows will not 
significantly affect the harm being done in the marketplace. There 
is no technical reason why existing Microsoft and non-Microsoft 
middle-ware will not be compatible with future versions of Windows. 
In fact Microsoft makes considerable effort to ensure that Windows 
is ``backwards compatible'' with its own applications.
    Remedies need to apply to all future versions of Windows, and 
all middle-ware now and in the future, and the obligations of the 
monopoly holder should not change unilaterally with a product 
release cycle under their express control. Much of the harm found by
    the Court is related not just to the disclosure of interfaces 
and APIs, but to the fact that Microsoft can stop supporting a 
documented feature or API without consulting the affected parties.
    One possible way to improve the Final Judgment would be to add a 
new condition to [II. C. that allows OEMs the option of shipping any 
prior Microsoft middle-ware with any subsequent version of Windows.
    1.2 Middle-ware APIs are as important as Windows APIs
    Section III.D. proposes that Microsoft shall disclose APIs used 
by its middle-ware to interoperate with a Windows operating system. 
Since middle-ware such as Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player 
has added, subtracted or altered significant APIs with each 
subsequent version, including minor, so called 
``maintenance'' versions, and since these APIs are 
depended on by the the majority of ISVs. III.D. should be extended 
to require disclosure of all APIs used by, or provided by any 
Microsoft middle-ware product, including APIs in other middle-ware 
software.
    1.3 Changes to current and past middle-ware needs to be covered
    The definition in VI.J excludes software in minor version 
changes from the definition of Microsoft middle-ware. Yet it was 
exactly such a minor change that disabled Java for millions of 
Internet Explorer users, or forced thousands of ISVs to abandon the 
Web Plug-in API and redevelop or abandon their middle-ware. (See 
http://www.meer.net/jg/broken-plugins.html)
    At a minimum all software middle-ware released by Microsoft and 
in use by a majority of Windows users should be covered by the Final 
Judgment for it to be effective.
    2. Shortcomings in the OEM configuration provisions
    It is clear from the findings of the Court that there needs to 
exist remedies that enable OEMs and End Users to be able to add, 
remove and replace middle-ware without limitation by Microsoft 
through its Windows product. It has been shown to the Court that its 
technically easy to allow middle-ware either from Microsoft or its 
competitors to be added and removed from the Windows operating 
system. The current language in the Final Judgment does not protect 
distribution of new and innovative forms of middle-ware and 
therefore fails to remedy the current situation where investment and 
competition in Windows middle-ware is ``chilled'' by 
Microsoft's prior and current practices.
    III.H.3 allows Microsoft to undo an OEM configuration in any 
subsequent version of a Windows product and to change the way an 
OEM's configuration interacts with Windows in each subsequent 
version. This lack of ``backwards compatibility'' is in 
Microsoft's interest at the expense of the OEM's investment.
    III.H.3. Allows Windows OS to undo an OEM's configuration 
automatically after 14 days. But it does not give the same 
capability to an ISV, or the OEM themselves. If a third party 
provides competitive differentiation by adding features and services 
on top of Windows they should be able to do so with no hindrance 
from Microsoft at all. If it is determined that Windows should have 
a ``revert'' feature that disables or undoes an OEM's 
enhancements, then that feature should have an ``undo'' 
capability so that the enhanced product purchased from the third 
party is not irreparably harmed by the behavior of the Windows 
software at some later time.
    III.H attempts to give end users and OEMs the right to add and 
replace non Microsoft middle-ware with competitive middle-ware, an 
essential component of the proposed remedies. Rather than just 
stating this as a simple requirement, additional restrictions are 
imposed in III.H.2:
    that competing middle-ware be replacing a Microsoft middle-ware
    that the middle-ware be a specific subset of possible middle-
ware that has a particular and limited type of user interface
    that Microsoft can require (and itself present?) a confirmation 
dialog for the end user if the change is made by software that the 
user presumably installed themselves
    III.H.3 imposes conditions on Microsoft operating system 
products altering OEM configurations, but Microsoft middle-ware also 
has a documented history of making such alterations. The Final 
Judgment does not protect OEM investments or end user choices unless 
it enjoins all Microsoft software products from altering, without 
express permission, the end user experience. It is exactly 
Microsoft's ability to make unilateral changes that expresses its 
monopoly power and distorts the market for improvements to Windows.
    The mechanism proposed in III.H. 1 allows Microsoft to provide a 
interface choice to enable ``all Microsoft Middle-ware Products 
as a group''. This should be specifically disallowed since it 
reinforces the distinction between Microsoft and non Microsoft 
software, and suggests that an end user would be given the default 
choice of ``taking everything'' (i.e. all available 
Microsoft middle-ware, turning off competitors middle-ware) in order 
to allow ease of use and configuration.
    III.C.3 The requirement that a non-Microsoft middle-ware product 
should display a user interface ``of similar size and 
shape'' to a Microsoft middle-ware product is technically 
onerous. The additional inferred requirement that a middle-ware 
product can only launch automatically if a Microsoft middle-ware 
product were otherwise to do so, is also technically unreasonable. 
If the purpose of this remedy is to allow competition in such 
middle-ware; to allow, for example, an OEM to configure a PC so that 
it connected automatically to an IAP or ICP on boot up, then these 
restrictions would preclude this.
    3. Loopholes and technical shortcomings with the wording of the 
judgment
    There are significant exceptions and conditions attached to the 
definitions used by the Final Judgment. These exceptions appear to 
make the remedies themselves weaker and in several cases are 
technically inaccurate or groundless.
    3.1 Excluding existing middle-ware Section III.H after III.H.3 
describes two exceptions where Microsoft middle-ware would be 
allowed to execute in preference to competing Middle-ware. These 
exceptions effectively negate the value of III.H and are seriously 
flawed.
    3.1.1 The first exception is for middle-ware ``invoked 
solely for use in inter-operating with a server maintained by 
Microsoft''. Given the current and past scope of MSN and the 
services provided by various servers in the 
``microsoft.com'' domain, this exception is unreasonable. 
For example, a component of Windows that contacted a server to 
upgrade or maintain the device driver software on a Personal 
Computer would be exempt from III.H. This would presumably preclude 
an OEM from providing their own value-add service using the same 
component APIs of Windows. As the value and

[[Page 28065]]

prevalence of network services grows, Microsoft would be able to 
continue to exclude competing middle-ware as long as they could 
define the service as being hosted at Microsoft. This would also 
include most .NET services, which Microsoft has publicly stated will 
be at the core of most end user functions in all future versions of 
Windows. The proposed remedy for past behavior is ineffective.
    3.1.2 The second exception is if ``non-Microsoft middle-
ware fails to implement reasonable technical requirements...''. 
This is an unreasonable and overly broad restriction on the proposed 
remedy. The specific example given, failure of support ActiveX, is a 
most egregious example. ActiveX is not a feature of Windows, it is 
an API created for Internet Explorer middle-ware expressly to tie 
that middle-ware to the Windows platform. In a healthy competitive 
environment it should be end users that conclude if middle-ware is 
providing ``functionality consistent with the Windows 
product'', not Microsoft. The idea that Microsoft themselves 
are qualified to say what is and what is not a valid non-Microsoft 
middle-ware product puts the fox in charge of the henhouse. In fact 
by the definitions of this section of the Final Judgment, most 
existing successful non-Microsoft middle-ware (Java, Netscape 
Navigator, Web Plug-ins) would be exempt from the remedy. It was 
precisely the success of these products, demanded by end users, that 
precipitated the threat to Microsoft and led to the illegal 
behavior.
    3.2 Limitations on disclosure of communications protocols
    Section III.E. Requires disclosure of any communications 
protocol implemented in a Windows OS installed on a 
``client'' computer.
    This would appear to exclude protocols implemented as Microsoft 
middie-ware, such as Web Browsers, or communications middle-ware 
such as e-mail programs (Outlook Express) or streaming media players 
(Windows Media Player). It would also appear to exclude protocols 
implemented in the same copy of Windows, running as a 
``server''. Given the advent of ``peer-to-peer'' 
computing this distinction excludes more significant protocols than 
it includes. To meet the intent described in the impact statement, 
the requirement should be the disclosure of any communications 
protocol implemented by the Windows Operating System Product and any 
Microsoft middle-ware product.
    3.3 Preventing disclosure on ``security'' grounds. 
Section III.J. 1.a attempts to limit the APIs and protocol 
descriptions to be published as part of the proposed remedy. The 
exceptions include those that would ``compromise the 
security...'' of the Microsoft products. It is well known and 
supported by the majority of reputable computer security experts, 
including many who work for Microsoft Corporation, that disclosure 
of the mechanisms of software makes it more secure, not less secure. 
In fact requiring Microsoft to document and disclose APIs will make 
the products more secure as flaws are discovered by peer review and 
then repaired. Computer security should not be considered valid 
technical grounds to limit disclosure.
    3.4 Limitations on who can access the disclosures
    Section III.J.2 places all kinds of limitations on the 
disclosure of the information central to the proposed remedy. In 
III.D the Final Judgment requires Microsoft to disclose APIs to all 
listed parties via ``MSDN or similar'' i.e. publicly and 
for a small fee. This conflicts with III.J.2 which allows Microsoft 
to withhold such information unless Microsoft itself determines 
``a reasonable business need'', or that the requester 
meets ``standards established by Microsoft for ... 
viability''. These restrictions are unnecessary and are not 
vital to the remedy. The required information should be disclosed 
simply, via MSDN or Microsoft.com, to anyone who has a valid Windows 
license. Section III.J.2 additionally requires that non-Microsoft 
middle-ware innovators be in ``compliance with Microsoft 
specifications'' and, at their own expense, pass a Microsoft 
defined third party verification test. These new tests and 
requirements are onerous, and do not exist in the market today 
except as optional marketing programs. In particular the non-
Microsoft middle-ware at issue in the anti-trust action would not 
have met these standards. These additional requirements and 
limitations will serve to place further hurdles in front of middle-
ware ISVs. They only serve the interests of the monopolist in 
limiting access to the required APIs as has happened in the past as 
documented in the Findings of Fact.
    4. Restrictive language related to Intellectual Property.
    The licensing terms implied by the Final Judgment are both more 
onerous than the prevailing market today, and unfairly biased in 
favor of Microsoft.
    The terms of III.G are not in force if Microsoft licenses 
intellectual property from the third party. This would appear to 
allow, for example, Microsoft to enter into an exclusive 
distribution arrangement with an ICP if the ICP had a reciprocal 
license to Microsoft for some middle-ware enhancement related to 
their Internet content. This kind of transaction is common in the 
industry today and would seem to weaken the intent of III.G Section 
III.I.5 grants Microsoft the right to require a competitor to 
license to it IP rights to ``relating to the exercise of their 
options or alternatives provided by this Final Judgment''. This 
is an onerous and unreasonable requirement because Microsoft does 
not need such non reciprocal IP rights to comply with the Final 
Judgment. (Could such rights be licensed father by Microsoft to 
other ISVs?)
    III.I requires Microsoft to reasonable and non discriminatory 
licensing of any intellectual property required for the market to 
take advantage of the provisions of the Final Judgment. However 
there is a restriction (H.III.3) on sub-licensing. This would in 
practice curtail most ISV business models if a technology innovator 
was unable to resell its technology to an ``end user'' OEM 
or ISV without that entity then being required to obtain a license 
from Microsoft.
    The last paragraph of III.I explicitly states that the terms of 
the Final Judgment will not confer any rights with regard to 
Microsoft IP on anyone. But as the Final Judgment requires 
disclosure by Microsoft of APIs, protocols and detailed 
documentation of mechanisms inherent in middle-ware interfaces, then 
certain legal rights are in fact surrendered in most jurisdictions.
    III.I does not address the significant and influential market in 
royalty free software (such as Linux) and the open standard nature 
of the Web protocols and standards. Industry standards groups which 
Microsoft itself is an active member of such as W3C (The World Wide 
Web Consortium) customarily require all APIs and protocols to be 
royalty free. Yet III.I potentially places further restrictions or 
costs on ISVs developing products and innovations under that model 
if they wish to integrate them with Windows.
    5. Problems with the term and proposed implementation
    5.1 Term is not long enough
    The Final Judgment has a term of five years (V.A), or seven 
years with additional violations. Given the pattern of illegal 
behavior by Microsoft since 1995 and the fact that Windows Operating 
system product cycles are frequently many years apart, the scope of 
this agreement appears unusually short. A 10 or 15 year agreement 
would be more appropriate.
    5.2 Issues with creating a competent technical body
    The Final Judgment requires a three person technical committee. 
While this committee is intended to be knowledgeable about software 
design and programming, it also needs to be knowledgeable about 
Internet standards and protocols, online transactions and web e-
commerce architectures and business models. It is unlikely that a 
committee as small as three people will have the requisite skill set 
to oversee the broad range of initiatives and innovations that 
center on the Windows platform and are the subject of the monopoly 
concern. The committee would be more in keeping with industry 
standards and accepted practice if it were larger and comprised of 
experts in several fields.
    5.3 Public disclosure of information relating to enforcement
    Section IV.B. I0 and other language in IV (e.g IV.D.4.d) 
suggests that the Final Judgment requires the work of compliance and 
technical overview to be conducted in secret. For example if an ISV 
submitted a complaint to the TC or the Microsoft Compliance Officer 
it is not required that the complaint and its response be published 
(IV.D.3) It would be more in keeping with industry standards and 
accepted practice for technical discussion around the enforcement of 
a Final Judgment be open to wider technical review. This would 
improve the quality and accuracy of such review as well as 
reassuring the community of OEMs, ISVs etc. that the enforcement 
process was actually working. At a minimum there should be a 
requirement that the TC host an independent web-site to communicate 
with the industry about the status of enforcement issues.
    6. Flaws in several of the definitions
    There are many problems with the definitions of key terms that 
affect the meaning and substance of the Final Judgment.

[[Page 28066]]

    VI.A. A suitable definition for Application Programming 
Interface needs to include interfaces provided by middle-ware 
itself, since middle-ware can include tiers of software, not just a 
simple arrangement where middle-ware calls the Windows software 
layers. A more accurate and common definition of APIs would be 
independent of both the terms Windows and middle-ware.
    VI.B. The scope of Communications Protocol should not be limited 
to communications with a ``server operating system''. This 
excludes the concept of one Windows XP PC talking to another PC, 
which is a common occurrence and should be within the scope of the 
remedy. ``Peer-to-peer'' is an example of a middle-ware 
category that is not covered by this definition.
    VI.J.2 and VI.K.b.iii both require that the covered software be 
``Trademarked'' to be under the terms of this agreement. 
This requirement seems to exclude certain middle-ware. For example 
``My Photos'' and ``Remote Desktop'' are new 
middle-ware in WindowsXP and are apparently not trademarked. VI.T 
defines Trademarked to exclude certain named products regardless of 
their impact in the market.
    VI.J.4 excludes software that has no user interface, such as a 
streaming video codec or a web commerce protocol handler. VI.K. 1 
lists certain products explicitly as middle-ware. Given that the 
Final Judgment as written only covers Windows XP and subsequent 
versions (it should be modified to cover prior versions), the list 
of covered products and categories should also include MSN Explorer, 
Microsoft Outlook and other Microsoft Office components, Windows 
Movie Maker and others.
    VI.N limits the definition of a ``non-Microsoft middle-ware 
product'' to one that has shipped 1,000,000 copies in a 
previous year. Under this definition, Netscape Communicator would 
not be covered by this Final Judgment, nor would Sun's Java JVM, 
both examples cited by the Court of middle-ware that require relief. 
The idea that a competing product has to already be successful to 
receive the protection of the Final Judgment is flawed. This 
condition should be removed.
    VI.N defines non-Microsoft middle-ware in terms of code exposing 
APIs, which are defined in VI.A as being uses by Microsoft middle-
ware (this is a circular definition). More importantly, non 
Microsoft middle-ware should not be defined more narrowly than 
Microsoft middle-ware. Not all middle-ware ``exposes a range of 
functionality to ISVs though published APIs'' although some 
(like Java) does. The original Netscape 1.0 web browser would have 
failed the definition in VI.N VI.Q defines Personal Computer as 
using an Intel x86 processor. Microsoft has in the past and will 
most likely in the future ship Windows Operating systems for 
processors other than x86. The Court found that Microsoft's illegal 
practices in respect of distribution of Internet Explorer also 
extended to the Macintosh Power-PC platform so this definition is 
overly narrow.
    VI.R. 150,000 beta testers is an unusually large number, even 
for Windows and suggests that ``timely manner'' would be 
defined as the last test release of a Microsoft product rather than 
the first public test release. The interests of the enforcement are 
better served if Timely Manner was defined as the first public test 
release of a Windows OS product.



MTC-00027580

From: Jason W. Solinsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Jason W. Solinsky. I am a software entrepreneur and 
have served as the Chief Technology Officer of four different 
enterprises.
    I am writing in opposition to the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft anti-trust case.
    My opposition is for the following reasons:
    1. The proposed settlement is almost entirely focused on 
measures to prevent abuses by Microsoft in the future, and does not 
address past behavior in any substantive way. Nor does it provide 
any incentive for
    Microsoft not to repeat its past actions.
    Microsoft was found to have violated the Sherman anti-trust act 
in numerous ways to preserve its monopoly on consumer operating 
systems, the single most valuable monopoly on the planet, 
conservatively valued at $150-200 billion dollars. As a 
software entrepreneur, I can tell you that every startup is asked 
``The Microsoft Question'' by potential investors. 
``How will your venture fair if Microsoft decides to 
aggressively target your space?''. A fear that Microsoft will 
do to new companies what it did to Netscape has caused at least six 
companies that I am personally aware of not to be started. This 
suggests that nationwide THOUSANDS of new enterprises and sources of 
innovation and competition for Microsoft have been destroyed by 
Microsoft's behavior.
    Despite this, the proposed settlement is almost entirely focused 
on preventative measures. If, in 1995, Microsoft was offered the 
choice of ceasing all illegal activities or entering into this 
settlement in 2002, Microsoft would, without question, have chosen 
this settlement. Protecting a $200 Billion dollar asset, even 
slightly, is worth suffering the negligible restrictions placed on 
Microsoft by this settlement a thousand times over. By offering a 
settlement which results in a business outcome that is superior to 
not violating the law in the first place, you send a clear message 
to future executives that they can ignore our nation's anti-trust 
laws with beneficial results.
    2. The proposed remedies will not prove effective in preventing 
future abuses by Microsoft. The findings of fact, made much of the 
fact that the software industry is a rapidly changing business. The 
department of justice seems to have completely forgotten about this 
in drafting the settlement. Nearly every provision has had loopholes 
placed in it that dramatically weaken its effectiveness.
    As an expert in computer security, I would like to focus in 
particular on the provision that exempts Microsoft from disclosing 
the details of its security APIs if Microsoft feels that such a 
disclosure would compromise the security of its products. I note the 
following:
    A: The single most important step in ensuring the security of a 
product is public disclosure of its security mechanisms. This allows 
other experts to review its safety, and it permits potential users 
to make informed decisions about the risks inherent in the product. 
Especially in the wake of September 11, allowing an exemption which 
encourages less secure products is unthinkable, yet that is 
precisely what the department of justice proposes to do.
    B: Microsoft has historically used security protocols as a 
method of preventing compatibility with third party products. 
Witness what Microsoft did with Kerberos. It doesn't matter how open 
Microsoft's APIs are if they are permitted to design 
incompatibilities into their security protocols that prevent 
effective interoperation.
    Given this is surprising and unfortunate that the Department of 
Justice has agreed to this provision. If no other change is mode to 
this settlement, which on the whole I believe is entirely in 
adequate for the circumstances, I strongly encourage the DOJ to 
tighten this provision by providing that a SINGLE COMPUTER SECURITY 
EXPERT UNAFILLIATED WITH MICROSOFT be given the ability to review 
all materials that Microsoft wishes to keep secret under this 
provision and UNILATERALLY reverse Microsoft's decision. Anything 
less will not only result in less secure products, but will give 
Microsoft a government-endorsed anti-competitive tool so powerful, 
that the remainder of the settlement is of little significance.
    In conclusion, I think that this entire settlement is inadequate 
for the circumstances, and encourage the DOJ to pay particular 
attention to the security exclusion, which reflects a lack of 
knowledge of computer security by its drafters.
    JWS
    You can contact me as follows:
    Jason W. Solinsky
    268 River St. #2
    Cambridge, MA 02139
    (617) 547-3555
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027581

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To'' Microsoft ATR
Date'' 1/28/02 4'57am
Subject'' Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust case. 
I am not a lawyer and I had a lot of trouble as a result, trying to 
follow the documents made available to the public at: http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm#docs but I and my family 
and business do use computers, and the outcome of this case is 
critical to our future.
    I just fail to see that there is any penalty in the settlement, 
and I fail to see any admission of guilt on the part of Microsoft 
(MS) or its senior executives. On the contrary, with the exception 
of the fact that there will be three people charged with monitoring 
MS for a very limited time (MS has been making flagrant violations 
of law and of ethics for over twenty years!), there seems to be no 
penalty at all. There is no fine, and there is no breakup. 
Historically (to the best of my recollection, including AT&T and 
Standard Oil) in the case of major monopolies a breakup always came 
about

[[Page 28067]]

which would allowed increased competition not only with outside 
competitors bu t also among the various new units resulting from the 
breakup.
    I am also concerned about the Department of Justicef??s 
(DOJf??s) and the Governmentf??s interest in the public interest. It 
was explained shortly after the September 9, 2001 terrorist attack 
that the government felt the pursuit of justice with respect to MS 
was not a high priority. I was shocked at the comments. No other 
felon was let off the hook because of the events of 9-11.
    I am further concerned about major political contributions made 
in 1999 and earlier and the impact that they have on the 
Governmentf??s view of what is right and wrong and what penalties 
should be imposed. The specter of impropriety is certainly present.
    And I am concerned about MS's influence during this public 
comment phase because in the past it has been demonstrated that MS 
has orchestrated a f??stuff the ballot boxf?? approach which they 
have taken many times in the past while trying to influence the 
Government and the public to act in its (MSf??s) behalf. One recent 
example of this was reported by ZDnet News (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/
story/0,,t269-s2102244,00.html):
    <
    Corresponding Secretary LXNY
    LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization.
    http://www.lxny.org
    Co-Winner of the First Linus Torvalds Community Award 1999
    PS. If you use the web or email you use free software. The 
Internet is built of and on free software.



MTC-00027597

    From: Christopher Bradley
    To: Microsoft ATR
    Date: 1/28/02 6:48am
    Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    I am not satisfied with the current ruling ``against'' 
microsoft. I believe they have a virtual monopoly on operating 
system software which they have strengthened both by intimidating 
business tactics and by bundling their software together, thus 
forcing users to use their software to do any meaningful work. I 
als0 strongly object to their entrenched reluctance to open up their 
code for public inspection. I agreed with the original Penfield 
rulings and think that the company's monopoly should be broken up.
    It's very difficult to fix a car if you don't know how the 
pieces fit together, and the company refuses to sell you a shop 
manual. I have spent many hours trying to keep my home computer 
going. This is particularly difficult in the Windows environment due 
to the inaccessibility of the basic operating system.
    Lastly, please DON'T let microsoft donate thousands of computers 
to our schools. That is a move to further consolidate their hold of 
the educational marketplace, and perhaps their hold of the next 
generation with their fault ridden products. It would not be an act 
of philanthropic charity.
    Thanks for your time,
    Christopher C. Bradley, M.D.-Ph.D.
    Department of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine
    15 York Street, LCI 701
    P.O. Box 208018
    New Haven, CT 06520-8018 (203)785-4085



MTC-00027598

From: Dave Solomon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case 
is not in the public interest, I strongly believe. It opens a gaping 
loophole in the antitrust laws, through which Microsoft could, and 
almost certainly would, continue to abuse its monopoly market power 
in the huge market for Intel compatible personal computer operating 
systems.
    This loophole, which I see as very dangerous, is at the end of 
the settlement text. It grants Microsoft sole discretion in deciding 
what is a part of the Windows (tm) product.
    This loophole would allow Microsoft to determine, for example, 
that all of these things are part of the Windows operating system: o 
Internet Explorer (but --not-- Internet Explorer for 
Macintosh!), thus resolving, by corporate decree, a product tying 
issue that is still unresolved from the Microsoft antitrust trial 
and appeals court ruling;
    o email software (Microsoft may already have monopoly status in 
this market as well, by vice of their predatory pricing and bundling 
of their Outlook products);
    o anti-virus software, threatening several currently thriving 
products from Norton, McAfee, etc.;
    o graphics software along the lines of PhotoShop;
    o income tax preparation software, thus assimillating the 
flourishing market for income tax preparation software into 
Microsoft's Windows market.
    o any other new and popular software genre that develops in the 
future.
    This case is highly visible and controversial, and was initiated 
under a major political party (the Democrats) that is now out of 
power in the executive branch of our government. This settlement 
proposal has all the earmarks of political convenience and 
expediency that it should not have, and none of the earmarks of 
thoughtfulness, thoroughness, and fairness that it should have.
    Please give the current proposed settlement the rejection that 
it so richly deserves.
    Dave Solomon
    13917 Crest Hill Lane
    Silver Spring, MD 20905-4464
    



MTC-00027599

From: Terry Quigley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I've watched with interest the unfolding of the Anti-trust case 
against Microsoft, and found the original recommendation fo a 
Microsoft split up travesty of justice. That Anti-trust should be 
such a potent force in the USA is in itself bizarre. Here's a 
country that has shown the rest of the world that Capitalism 
actually works. Capitalism works because it has its own inbuilt 
system of checks and balances i.e. the free market, and, properly 
implemented, isn't weighed down by tons of regulation. This is 
especially the case in the IT industry where Microsoft has been and 
continues to be such a positive force. From my knowledge, no IT 
company has ever effectively monopolised an industry segment. If an 
IT company found itself in a monopoly position and chose to 
compromise prices and/or quality, its monopoly position would be 
temporary at best--technology is changing far too quickly for 
someone to take an uncompetitive position.
    I'd like to finish by stating that Microsoft should be lauded 
for its contribution to the IT industry and to America as a whole, 
and not be dragged through a costly (to American taxpayers and 
Microsoft), unnecessary court case; it should not be punished for 
its success. Microsoft is a very positive example of what can be 
done when Government is the instrument not the controller of the 
people.
    Come on guys, let America pump its chest with pride not resort 
to punitive insecurity.

[[Page 28075]]

    Yours sincerely,
    Terry Quigley, M Info Sys
    38 Eddys Grove
    Bentleigh, 3204
    Victoria, Australia.



MTC-00027600

From: Mark Boszko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to express my displeasure with the DOJ's proposed 
settlement with Microsoft, for the following reasons:
    1. The proposed settlement is not in the public interest. The 
settlement leaves the Microsoft monopoly intact. It is vague and 
unenforceable. It leaves Microsoft with numerous opportunities to 
exempt itself from crucial provisions.
    2. The proposed settlement ignores the all-important 
applications barrier to entry which must be reduced or eliminated. 
Any settlement or order needs to provide ways for consumers to run 
any of the 70,000 existing Windows applications on any other 
operating system.
    3. Consumers need a la carte competition and choice so they, not 
Microsoft, decide what products are on their computers. The 
settlement must provide ways for any combination of non-Microsoft 
operating systems, applications, and software components to run 
properly with Microsoft products.
    4. The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States are 
in the public interest and absolutely necessary, but they are not 
sufficient without the remedies mentioned above.
    5. The court must hold public proceedings under the Tunney Act, 
and these proceedings must give citizens and consumer groups an 
equal opportunity to participate, along with Microsoft's competitors 
and customers.
    Thank you for considering my points.
    Mark Boszko
    374 N SUMMIT AVE STE 101
    GAITHERSBURG MD 20877-3116 301-977-0401



MTC-00027601

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:01am
Subject: Rule against microsoft!
    I'm writing to urge you to take more harsh action against 
Microsoft. The current recommendation of having microsoft supply 
thousands of computers to schools is actually rewarding Microsoft, 
rather than punishing them. One market which has been successfully 
addressed but a competitor to Microsoft is the education market. Now 
the recommendation to ``punish'' microsoft it to use the 
law to force them into one of the few markets where a competitor has 
managed to carve out a niche. Microsoft must be laughing all the way 
to the bank on that one. PLEASE, do not allow this company to become 
even more entrenched and allow it to further dictate the future of 
software development and even more importantly, the way people work 
and learn.
    Dan Hogan
    6703 Ilex Ct.
    New Market, MD 21774-2907
    301-865-3712



MTC-00027602

From: Karl O. Pinc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams,
    I attach 3 versions of my comments, a PDF file for printing, a 
HTML copy for following references, and a ASCII text copy for 
interoperability.
    Regards,
    Karl O. Pinc 
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected] (U.S. Department Of Justice)
From: [email protected] (Karl O. Pinc) 5512 S. Woodlawn Chicago, 
IL 60637
    Introduction
    I write so that there is a public record which points out that 
the Stipulation and Revised Proposed Final Judgment 1 does not 
provide the relief claimed in the Competitive Impact 
Statement \2\, and to point out that at least some of the 
failure of relief should be clear to anyone, with or without 
computer industry background. Further, I describe how the Proposed 
Final Judgment explicitly authorizes Microsoft's continued use it's 
monopoly powers to advantage over it's competitors. I therefore 
conclude that the public and the marketplace would be better served 
if the Proposed Final Judg- ment was scrapped and the government 
imposed no penalty on Microsoft. Finally, I point out the means, as 
generally acknowledged in the industry, by which Microsoft intends 
to preserve and extend it's monopoly and an obvious way in which 
Microsoft can be prevented from doing so.
    I do not have time or energy to analyze the entire Proposed 
Final Settlement. I focus on only a few elements and how they meet 
the relief claimed:
    ``The Proposed Final Judgment will provide a prompt, 
certain and effective remedy for consumers by imposing injunctive 
relief to halt continuance and prevent recurrence of the violations 
of the Sherman Act by Microsoft that were upheld by the Court of 
Appeals and restore competitive conditions to the 
market.'' \3\
    Contractual freedom unrestrained by monopolist pressure
    Starting with the first relief claimed:
    ``Ensuring that computer manufacturers have contractual and 
economic freedom to make decisions about distributing and supporting 
non-Microsoft middleware products without fear of coercion or 
retaliation by Microsoft, by broadly prohibiting retaliation against 
a computer manufacturer that supports or distributes alternative 
middleware or operating systems.'' \4\
    Let us examine this claim. Presumably, the following elements 
provide the above relief:
    ``Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement with:'' 
(item 1.) ``any IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM that grants 
Consideration on the condition that such entity distributes, 
promotes, uses, or supports, exclusively or in a fixed percentage, 
any Microsoft Platform Software...'' \5\ In plain 
english, Microsoft may not prohibit an OEM& \6\ from 
putting a non-Microsoft program on the computers they sell. However, 
note the exception that immediately follows: ``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'' \7\
    At first glance, it seems that Microsoft can require OEMs to 
distribute Microsoft software, but only in equal or smaller quantity 
than the OEMs distribute non-Microsoft software. Indeed, this would 
be the case if product at issue was not software. However, Microsoft 
need only require OEMs to distribute Microsoft software in a 
quantity which matches not the actual quantity of non-Microsoft 
software shipped, but the quantity of non-Microsoft software which 
is ``commercially practicable'' the OEM to ship. To 
investigate the ``commercial practicality'' of 
distributing non-Microsoft software, examine a short list of 
products which are the primary competition for various Microsoft 
products:
    . The Netscape \8\ web browser in place of Microsoft 
Internet Explorer (IE)
    . The AOL \9\ software used to connect to the AOL Internet 
service in place of Microsoft Internet Explorer which connects to 
the MSN Internet service
    . The Apache \10\* web server in place of Microsoft 
Internet Information Server (IIS)
    . Linux \11\ in place of Microsoft's operating systems 
(XP, Win 2000, Win ME, Win 98, Win95, etc.)
    . StarOffice \12\ in place of Microsoft Office (Word, 
Excel, Power Point, etc.) \13\
    The above non-Microsoft programs all have one thing in common. 
They are free of charge. The only cost associated with the 
distribution of these programs is the amount of space the programs 
occupy on the computer's hard drive, a negligible cost in today's 
era of cheap hard drives. Or, looked at another way, the computer's 
owner can completely recoup the disk space taken by any of these 
programs for the cost of dragging the program into the trash. For 
all intents and purposes these programs, arguably Microsoft's 
strongest competitors, are free. This means it is 
``commercially practicable'' for an OEM to distribute any 
or all of these programs with every computer sold.
    Therefore under the terms of the Proposed Final Judgment, 
Microsoft may require ``any IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM'' to 
include a Microsoft program 100% of the time. The Proposed Final 
Judgment allows Microsoft to collect a `tax'' on every 
sale. Should Microsoft for some reason find it to its advantage not 
to charge for its software, the simple fact that a product is always 
sold with Microsoft programs pre-installed is an advantage not 
granted to the competition. Imagine how much it would cost to have 
someone install, for example, a copy of the Microsoft XP operating 
system on a computer you already own.
    As written, this clause of the Proposed Final Judgment 
authorizes Microsoft to

[[Page 28076]]

continue to reap advantage from its monopoly. Removing this loophole 
seems straight-forward. The clause could read: ``except that 
Microsoft may enter into agreements in which such an entity agrees 
to distribute, promote, use or support Microsoft Platform Software 
in a quantity equal or less than the distribution, promotion, use or 
support for software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software
    On casual reading of the judgment the appearance is that this 
clause does nothing more than allow Microsoft to negotiate a share 
of business comparable to the it's competitor's share. Yet the 
simplicity of the revision which would meet this ``fair 
share'' requirement leads me to conclude that the more complex 
``commercially practicable'' phrasing of the Proposed 
Final Judgment is deliberately included to allow Microsoft to use 
its monopoly to force contractual arrangements which ensure the 
ubiquitous presence of Microsoft software on all computers.
    Indeed as: ``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.'' \27\ the final judgment clearly 
allows Microsoft to make contracts requiring the distribution of its 
software on all of a vendor's products if the vendor wants to 
distribute any of Microsoft's products.
    Competitive market conditions
    The Competitive Impact Statement state that the purpose of the 
judgment is to ``restore competitive conditions to the 
market''.\28\ To see that the judgment does not accomplish this 
goal you must first acknowledge that Microsoft's most significant 
competition is not based in any one company. Microsoft's most 
significant competition is from Open Source \29\ \30\ 
software. If this is apparent to you, feel free to skip forward.
    The Open Source competitor
    To make clear the magnitude of the threat posed by Open Source 
to Microsoft, I analyze here the entire range of Open Source 
programs. The non-Microsoft programs mentioned in this segment are 
all Open Source unless otherwise indicated. Although the Competitive 
Impact Statement emphasizes middleware, and the middleware 
competitive market, in the words of the Competitive Impact 
Statement, it is Microsoft's ``operating system monopoly'' 
that Microsoft engaged in illegal acts to protect. Therefore an 
analysis of more than just middleware competition is in order. 
Microsoft has illegally bolstered its operating system business and 
the remedy should address the competitive market for operating 
systems as well. Irrespective of what the remedy addresses, the 
presence of Open Source operating systems in my examples serve to 
illustrate the power of Open Source software as a class of programs 
and in no way diminish the threat Open Source middleware poses to 
Microsoft. First, note that the Open Source operating systems are 
the only \34\ operating systems which run on the same hardware 
as the Microsoft operating systems, the PC hardware. Almost by 
definition they are Microsoft's only competition. Although Microsoft 
seems entrenched in the dominant position as the software supplier 
for ``commodity'' computer hardware, it is clear that in 
many emerging markets Open Source software is the market leader, not 
Microsoft. The Apache web server is the market leader with twice the 
market share of Microsoft.\35\ Open Source leads Microsoft in the 
embedded systems 38 market.\39\ Linux is replacing existing Unix 
systems in the fast paced environment of the special effects 
studios.\43\ Open Source software is capturing markets Microsoft 
hopes to move into, and even appears to be eroding some of 
Microsoft's existing markets. The market share of Open Source 
software is often hard to measure, as there is centralized 
distribution point, but by all accounts the share of Open Source 
operating systems on server 46 systems is growing. A (Microsoft 
funded) Gartner \47\ study \48\ (3rd Qtr, 2000) found 
8.6% of the servers sold were shipped with Linux. A IDG \49\ 
study \50\ (Aug, 2000) found Linux had achieved a 17.2% 
penetration in the server market. InfoWorld \51\ (Aug, 2000) 
reports \52\ the Gartner study predicts ``that by 2005, 
Linux, Unix, and Windows 2000 will account for 77 percent of the 
server market. More important, the report expects that the 77 
percent will be split equally among the three.'' Point of sale 
systems are moving to Linux. ZDNet \53\ reports \54\ 
(Jan, 2002) ``Boscov's, with 36 locations in six states in the 
mid-Atlantic region is replacing 500 Windows NT servers with Linux 
on an IBM zSeries 900 mainframe''. Even the traditionally 
conservative financial services market is adopting Linux. 
Information Week \55\ reports \56\ (Oct, 2000) Linux is 
gaining a foothold on Wall Street and in the broader financial-
services community''. An IBM \57\ press 
release \58\ (Aug, 2001) hollered ``WALL STREET MOVES TO 
LINUX AND IBM FOR FINANCIAL TRADING'' when portions of the New 
York and American Stock Exchanges began to run on Linux. Mainstream 
publications are beginning to publish Linux related information for 
the general public, like The Chicago Tribune \59\'s Linux and 
Things \60\ series. It s no wonder that the arrival of a 
Microsoft Office compatible Open Source program, like the 
aforementioned Star Office Suite or the AbiWord \61\ word 
processor or the Gnumeric \62\ spreadsheet are considered 
developments which could finally break Microsoft's hold on the 
computer desktop. An October, 2001 analysis \63\ \64\ of 
the Open Source movement for the British Government concludes 
``we as yet see no sign that OSS will become a viable 
alternative to Microsoft Windows, for user's (general purpose) 
desktop machines in the corporate or home PC markets. However, OSS 
on the desktop may soon become a significant player in the 
developing world.'' It also concludes ``Within five years, 
50% of the volume of the software infrastructure market could be 
taken by OSS.'' The progress made by Open Source programmers 
has not been lost on Microsoft. In October of 1998 internal 
Microsoft documents which discussed the threat to Microsoft poised 
by Open Source and possible responses was leaked to the public. 
These internal Microsoft documents became known as the Halloween 
documents \66\, these documents were later 
confirmed \67\ authentic by Microsoft. In October of 1999 
Wired \68\ reported \69\ ``Aubrey Edwards, group 
product manager in the business enterprise division at 
Microsoft.'' said ``There's a lot of interest around Linux 
and we need to compete.'' In May, 2001 Microsoft spoke out 
against Open Source. ZDNet reported \70\ ``Microsoft on 
Thursday stepped up its long-running battle against the open-source 
software movement, and in another story \71\ said the speech 
came across as an attack, as if Microsoft feels the desperate need 
to discount what people see around them-that open-source software is 
doing real and solid computing work for an evergrowing number of 
computer users, big and small.'' It appears Microsoft is 
increasingly threatened by Open Source. The Register \72\, a 
British news source which writes in an excitable style 
reported \73\ in Dec, 2001 that it had obtained a confidential 
memo from Microsoft Windows Division Vice President Brian Valentine 
who was reported to have written to his sales team ``Linux is 
the long-term threat against our core business. Never forget 
that!''.\74\
    Judgment sanctioned suppression of the Open Source competition
    The Proposed Final Judgment is supposedly
    ``Creating the opportunity for software developers and 
other computer industry partici pants to develop new middleware 
products that compete directly with Microsoft by requiring Microsoft 
to disclose all of the interfaces and related technical information 
that Microsoft's middleware uses to interoperate with the Windows 
operating system.'' \75\
    However, the judgment allows Microsoft to withhold ``all of 
the interfaces and related technical information'' from 
Microsoft's most significant competitor, the Open Source programmer. 
This is because Open Source software is not, historically, produced 
by a company. It is produced by a loose collection of individuals 
who use the Internet to collaborate, some of whom are sometimes paid 
for their efforts by the companies which employ them. The judgment 
reads: ``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'' \76\
    But Open Source programmers are not ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs or 
OEMs and so Microsoft need not disclose anything to them. Open 
Source programs are, by definition, given away if they are 
distributed by their author. Not only is there no company to which 
Microsoft can release a license granting information, there is no 
money to pay for such a license. The Judgment continues:
    ``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,

[[Page 28077]]

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 operating system 
product) with a Microsoft server operating system 
product.'' \77\
    But, the cited Section III.I makes it clear that the disclosure 
again need only be made, under license, to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, 
or OEMs. The Open Source programmer is excluded.
    To exclude any possibility that Microsoft might have to release 
specifications to an Open Source programmer the judgment requires 
that the information recipient must have ``a reasonable 
business need for the API, Documentation or Communications 
Protocol'' \78\ and that Microsoft will judge ``the 
authenticity and viability of its business'' \79\ before 
releasing information. Open Source programming is not a business, 
and is therefore explicitly excluded.
    Clearly the Proposed Final Judgment benefits the large 
commercial software developer, and excludes the Open Source 
movement, Microsoft's most significant competitor, from the 
benefits. Microsoft can only gain from the inevitable lessening of 
Open Source's market share.
    A continued extension of the Microsoft monopoly
    Microsoft is widely acknowledged to be attempting to become the 
primary issuer of electronic identity documents. The idea is that 
each individual is to have a single user-name and password, held by 
Microsoft. This new ``passport'' is to replace the 
separate user-names and passwords presently issued by banks, 
merchants, bulletin boards, and anybody who requires authentication 
before access is granted to a web site or other electronic document. 
Microsoft's product is called ``Passport'', and it's an 
essential component of Microsoft's new .NET technology. Note that 
the centralization of the identification information, and the 
corresponding tendency toward a ``natural monopoly'', is 
intrinsic to the Passport idea. Microsoft is explicitly not required 
``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'' ... ``authentication systems'' 80. 
As the Passport technology is all about communications protocols 
supporting authentication systems, the judgments again authorizes 
Microsoft to keep secret the information it uses to extend it's 
monopoly.
    A reasonable way to prevent the extension of Microsoft's 
monopoly would be to require Microsoft split off it's Passport 
division.
    Conclusion
    That a judgment should be so flawed, so unable to provide 
relief, and so sympathetic to the monopoly it is supposed to be 
protecting the public from, and that such a judg- ment is the second 
try at a resolution, leads me to believe that, for whatever reason, 
the judicial system is unable to provide any relief and will only 
make things worse should it change the status quo. As it stands, the 
proposed judgment is clearly worse than no judgment, as it 
explicitly grants Microsoft the right to use it's monopoly power to 
suppress it's competition. Left to itself, Microsoft will eventually 
collapse under it's own weight, as IBM did. I urge the court to 
reject the Proposed Final Judg- ment.
    BEGIN RATIONALE: Although it's not within the court's power to 
so order, and shouldn't be, it's too bad that the obvious remedy 
cannot be applied--a moratorium on federal government purchase 
of Microsoft products. ;-) END
    RATIONALE:
    Notes
    1. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm
    2. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9500/9549.htm
    3. Competitive Impact Statement, Section I
    4. Competitive Impact Statement, Section I
    5. Proposed Final Judgment, Section III, Sub-Section G
    6. Original Equipment Manufacturer, i.e. the folks who sell 
computers.
    7. Proposed Final Judgment, Section III, Sub-Section G, item 1
    8. http://browsers.netscape.com
    9. http://free.aol.com/
    10. http://httpd.apache.org
    11. http://www.linux.org
    12. http://www sun.com/software/star/staroffice
    13. You may never have heard of
    14. http://www.sun.com/software/star/staroffice or it's twin
    15. http://www.openoffice.org . They are sponsored by
    16. http://www.sun.com . To quote a
    17. http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents/
QinetiQ--OSS--rep.pdf ``The first real trials are 
starting now.'' Early adopters include
    18. http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl'sid=01/08/10/1441239 and
    19. http://www.vnunet.com/News/1124456 . You know some thing's 
up when you suddenly get
    20. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/O2--O4/
b3767021.htm of the old StarOffice, which has been available since 
at least December 1999, in response to the interest generated by
    21. http://consultingtimes.com/sofeatures.html
    22. http://www.techtv.com/print/story/
0%2C23102%2C3351510%2C00.html
    23. http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/3818/2/ the
    24. http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/3857/1/
    25. http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/3841/2/ 
StarOffice. (A sample quote:
    26. http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial /
article.asp?article=articles %2Farchive%2Fc0101%2)
    14. http://www.sun.com/software/star/staroffice
    15. http://www.openoffice.org
    16. http://www.sun.com
    17. http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents/ 
QinetiQ--OSS--rep.pdf
    18. http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl'sid= 01/08/10/1441239
    19. http://www.vnunet.com/News/1124456
    20. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/ content/02--04/
b3767021.htm
    21. http://consultingtimes.com/sofeatures.html
    22. http://www.techtv.com/print/story/ 
0%2C23102%2C3351510%2C00.html
    23. http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/3818/2/
    24. http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/3857/1/
    25. http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/3841/2/
    26. http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/article. 
asp?article=articles %2Farchive%2Fc0101%2F 59??
    27. Section III, Sub-Section A, paragraph 3
    28. Competitive Impact Statement, Section I
    29. http://www.opensource.org
    30. I use the term ``Open Source'' loosely in this 
document to encompass both the
    31. http://www.opensource.org and the
    32. http://www.gnu.org Speaking rigorously the Free Software 
movement's
    33. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ are the largest threat to 
Microsoft, although much Open Source software giving Microsoft stiff 
competition is not licensed under a copyleft-style license.
    31. http://www.opensource.org
    32. http://www.gnu.org
    33. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/
    34. As far as I know.
    35. See the various methods of measurement and market breakdowns 
at the widely followed
    36. http://www.netcraft.com/survey/ and
    37. http://www.securityspace.com/s --survey/data/index.html 
web server surveys.
    36. http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
    37. http://www.securityspace.com/s --survey/data/index.html
    38. Embedded systems are the software that runs computers built 
into items which are not themselves computers--the computers in 
everything from cell phones to dishwashers.
    39. A
    40. http://www.evansdata.com/emtarg.htm
    41. http://evansdata.com/ESTOC.htm shows the number (27%) of 
embedded developers choosing Linux for their next project to be 
nearly double the number (14.1%) choosing the Microsoft product. 
According to a (April 2001)
    42. http://www.linuxdevices.com/ articles/AT2492406168.html 
survey, ``the percent of developers considering using Embedded 
Linux for new projects has zoomed to the number two spot 
(38%)--second only to market leader Wind River's 
VxWorks.''
    40. http://www.evansdata.com/emtarg.htm
    41. http://evansdata.com/ESTOC.htm
    42. http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT2492406168.html
    43. From the on-line news source
    44. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature /2001/11/01/
linux--hollywood/ : ``Linux goes to the movie .... Who 
says free software is passe? Hollywood's special-effects industry 
can't get enough of the operating system built by hack- ers, for 
hackers.'' The movies Shrek and
    45. http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters /linux/2001/
01156783.html were brought to you by Linux.
    44. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature /2001/11/01/
linux--hollywood/

[[Page 28078]]

    45. http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/linux/2001/01156783.html
    46. as opposed to desktop
    47. http://www.gartner.com
    48. http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=330693
    49. http://www.idg.com
    50. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing /9904/02/
linuxgrow.ent.idg/
    51. http://www.infoworld.com
    52. http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/08/14/
000814opbiggs.xml
    53. http://www.zdnet.com
    54. http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate /stories/main/
0,14179,2841690,00.html
    55. http://www.informationweek.com
    56. http://www.informationweek.com/808/linux.htm
    57. http://www.ibm.com
    58. http://www.ibm.com/servers/eserver /zseries/os/linux/
zseries--stock.html



MTC-00027602--0009

    59. http://chicagotribune.com
    60. http://chicagotribune.com/technology/developers /
chilinuxgallery.storygallery?coll= chi%2Dtech r
    61. http://www.abiword.org/
    62. http://www.gnumeric.org
    63. http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/rfc/rfc 
--document.asp?docnum=429
    64. The
    65. http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents /
QinetiQ--OSS--rep.pdf is available as a PDF.
    65. http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents /
QinetiQ--OSS--rep.pdf
    66. http://www.opensource.org/halloween/index.html
    67. http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld /lw-1998-11/lw-
ll-halloween.html
    68. http://www.wired.com
    69. http://www.wired.com/news/linux/0,1411,31801,00.html
    70. http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106 
-814293.html?legacy=zdnn
    71. http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories /story/
O,lO738,2717631,OO.html
    72. http://www.theregister.co.uk
    73. http://www.theregister/co.uk/content/4/22770.html
    74. To my knowledge, the authenticity of this memo has not been 
denied by Microsoft.
    75. Competitive Impact Statement, Section II, bullet 6
    76. Proposed Final Judgment, Section III, Sub-Section D
    77. Proposed Final Judgment, Section III, Sub-Section E
    78. Proposed Final Judgment, Section III, Sub-Section ], 
Paragraph 2
    79. Proposed Final Judgment, Section III, Sub-Section J, 
Paragraph 2
    80. Proposed Final Judgment, Section III, Sub-Section J, 
Paragraph 1



MTC-00027603

From: Daniel Upper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is grossly inadequate in two substantial 
ways.
    First, it doesn't address the primary reason that business users 
use Windows, which is Microsoft's ``Office'' suite of 
productivity applications -- notably Word, Excel, and 
Powerpoint. Most businesses and industries (the legal profession 
being something of an exception) have effectively standardized on 
these applications. Because most office workers have the Office 
applications available, it is common practice to email documents to 
others in Word, Excel, and Powerpoint file formats.
    This common practice effectively requires everyone in the 
business world to have applications which can read and write Office 
file formats. And-- because only Microsoft knows all the 
details of these file formats--the only applications which can 
read and write all aspects of these formats are those sold by 
Microsoft. Most word processors have some ability to read Word 
documents, but stop short of implementing features like 
``change tracking'', which is widely used in collaborative 
work. The non-Microsoft tools I've tried for reading Powerpoint 
presentations have all been unable to render some slides 
intelligibly at all. I, for one, use Linux for almost all of my 
computer tasks, but can not function in the business world without 
access to a Windows computer.
    So Microsoft has two mutually supportive monopolies, one on 
operating systems Windows and the other on productivity application 
suites. Resolution of case must provide a way for other OSes to have 
full use of/access to MS Office format documents. And it is not 
sufficient to require MS to sell versions of the Office applications 
for other OSes. MS has sold versions of the applications for MacOS, 
and MS has manipulated the production of these versions in ways 
which have enhanced the Windows monopoly.
    Microsoft should publicly document all file formats and network 
protocols it uses. Such documentation can be 
inadequate--accidentally or deliberately--so if there's 
any doubt that the documentation is adequate, MicroSoft should be 
required to publish working code. In addition, the clauses in 
Microsoft's End User Licence Agreements (EULAs) which prohibit the 
user from disassembling, decompiling and reverse engineering should 
be voided and Microsoft should be prohibited from including such 
clauses in future EULAs.
    Second, the proposed settlement only seeks to provide relief to 
Microsoft's commercial competitors. Certain clauses in the proposed 
settlement, such as Section III(J)(2), require Microsoft to make 
specified information available to businesses, and let Microsoft 
judge who qualifies as a business. Various not-for-profit entities, 
including not-for-profit organizations, individuals, universities, 
and government agencies--are important participants in the 
software industry. Public interest is not served by excluding them.
    Quite a bit of important and widely used software is developed 
by non-for-profit entities. Such software includes the Linux OS, 
which is developed by an ad-hoc group of programmers and may be the 
OS which comes closest to competing with Windows. There are 
indications that Microsoft is concerned that Linux and other 
``open source'' software may become important competitors. 
(Although there are companies in the business of enhancing and 
selling Linux, most Linux software is not written by these 
companies.) Instead of requiring Microsoft to make specified 
information available to specific businesses, the settlement should 
require Microsoft to publish the same information publically.
    Daniel R. Upper
    1330 NW Hillcrest
    Corvallis, OR 97330



MTC-00027604

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 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,
    Marian Pedersen
    PO BOX 1518
    Layton, UT 84041-6518



MTC-00027605

From: Joseph Gilvary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:07am
Subject: Disagree with settlement
    I disagree strongly with the proposed settlement. I would like 
to express my disappointment that the Justice Department and several 
states, including shamefully, my home state of Maryland, would 
consider ending the actions against the predatory monopolist 
Microsoft without ensuring sufficient protection for consumers to 
ensure a competitive environment in the future. Microsoft's actions 
have stifled, not encouraged innovation in the software industry.
    Respectfully,
    Joseph Gilvary



MTC-00027606

From: L. Drew Pihera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a bad idea for a number of reasons. The most 
prevalent in my mind is the fact that currently, businesses and 
consumers really have no choice in the matter of what operating 
system to buy. I am currently at work, where I am a research

[[Page 28079]]

scientist for the Georgia Institute of Technology's Research 
Institute. I am not composing this email on a Linux machine, though 
that would be my preference. In fact I have requested such a 
machine, but it has been deemed not doable. The reason I am told, is 
that we must remain compatible with the rest of the world. So by 
default, because everyone runs Windows, we must. Not because it's 
the better product, not because it's cost effective, but because 
they hold the monopoly on desktop systems. I have asked other system 
administrators why they run Windows, and the reason is some 
permutation of a need for Windows to remain compatible or a need for 
Microsoft Office for the same reason. Without a choice, productivity 
is cut. There are countless times I would have been able to produce 
work faster if I did not have to deal with Windows, but I did not 
have a choice. If I want to run Linux at home, I have to buy a 
second computer because first and foremost, I need to stay 
compatible with work, and thus must have a Windows machine. The 
cycle is never ending. I have also had to port code from various 
other operating systems to Windows as well, most recently in a 
language called ``C'' which is supposed to be 
standardized. This means that I should be able to take the code 
straight to the Windows machine and use it, as I used nothing but 
the ``plain vanilla C'' as we call it (meaning using 
nothing but the standard functions of the language). There were 
however multiple changes that needed to be made to the code however 
in order to get it to work. These were usually just a simple name 
change for a function call, but this is an illustration of another 
way Microsoft breaks inter operability to maintain a monopoly and 
force people down the Windows path.
    L. Drew Pihera
    Research Scientist I
    Electronic Systems Lab,
    Georgia Tech Research Institute
    Atlanta, GA 30332 Phone: (404) 894-7041



MTC-00027607

From: Nick McKnight
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    In regard to the specifics of the proposed final judgement, 
Section III.J.2.c would allow Microsoft to condition licensing of 
security-related APIs based on their right to certify the 
``authenticity and viability'' of a potential licensee's 
business. This right could be used by Microsoft to block progress in 
many free software projects aimed at interoperability. Active third-
party involvement would be needed to insure equitable standards in 
the licensing of security-related APIs. I feel the comments offered 
at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html should also be 
considered. Based on his comments at http://slashdot.org/
article.pl'sid=01/12/17/1235220&mode=thread I believe Stephen 
Satchell should be considered for appointment to the proposed three-
person Technical Committee.
    With greater dependence on digital infrastructure, the 
availability of software that is both secure and open to innovation 
is a critical need. I believe free software such as GNU/Linux can 
help fulfill this need and should be encouraged.
    Sincerely,
    Nick McKnight, Lawrenceville, GA;
    Software Engineer



MTC-00027608

From: Nathan Florea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice;
    I have numerous problems with the Proposed Final Judgement 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I believe it is 
inherently flawed and will prove ineffective. I think it would have 
been unacceptable before Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact. After 
that, however, any settlement as favorable to Microsoft as this one 
is mind boggling.
    I think the specific reasons the Proposed Final Judgement is 
flawed have probably been adequately covered in comments from my 
fellow citizens. Instead, I will write about why I do not think any 
behavioral remedy will be adequate to curb Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices. This is something that I can perhaps provide 
some unique or at least less common insight on.
    I think that the corporate culture at Microsoft will make any 
behavioral remedy ineffective. As someone who worked at Microsoft 
during the antitrust trial, I think I have some understanding of the 
corporate culture there. It is very insulated. A large portion of 
people who work at Microsoft have no professional contact with 
anyone outside of company. It is very polarized with an ``us 
against the world'' mentality. The use of anything but 
Microsoft products, unless there is absolutely no Microsoft 
alternative yet, is frowned upon. And Microsoft believes it did 
nothing wrong. This is evidenced in the public statements from its 
executives, such as Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. Never have they 
said that Microsoft did anything wrong. In fact, they have 
constantly claimed Microsoft has done nothing wrong, even after 
Judge Jackson's findings. And this permeates throughout the 
corporate culture. Never did I hear a Microsoft employee voice an 
opinion out of line with the company's position. Never did I hear 
anyone admit the DOJ case had any validity.
    Until Microsoft changes their corporate culture and acknowledges 
that it engaged in anti-competitive practices, a behavioral remedy 
will simply be an obstacle to work around or through. And Microsoft 
has proven how effective it can be at getting around any behavioral 
changes with the previous consent decree. Expecting a behavioral 
change to be effective given Microsoft's track record and unyielding 
stance is foolishly optimistic at best.
    Please reconsider a structural remedy. At the very least, make a 
genuine attempt to change the corporate culture. Microsoft has to 
take responsibility for its crimes before any settlement can move 
forward.
    Sincerely,
    Nathan Florea



MTC-00027609

From: wayne swygert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:14am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    Please put an end to the persecution of Microsoft--this 
lawsuit is nothing more than envy on the part of their competitors 
who wish to substitute political and legal maneuvering for free 
market competition-which is all Microsoft has ever done, despite 
dishonest publicity to the contrary. The fact remains that Microsoft 
does not have the power to force anyone to buy it's 
products--it's just not possible. Only the government can 
physically coerce.
    Therefore, please end this lawsuit now...cease punishing 
Microsoft...it is immoral and unjust.
    Sincerely,
    Wayne Swygert



MTC-00027610

From: Mott Dave Contr WRALC/LYSBD
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 7:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement does not go far enough to punish 
Microsoft. Their monopoly has damaged quality and innovation in the 
computer industry. Their success in the consumer operating system 
market has spilled over into enterprise software. Uninformed, non-
technical business managers who use Microsoft products at home, like 
them, and do not have enough experience with computers to recognize 
low-quality products when they see them, have forced businesses into 
using Microsoft products. Technical business people have been forced 
to use their inferior products simply because of Microsoft's 
monopoly in consumer software.
    Microsoft should be punished for their monopolistic abuses. They 
should be forced unequivocally to open up all technical details of 
their enterprise operating systems (Windows 2000 Professional and 
Server, Windows XP Professional and Server) and all technical 
details of Microsoft Office in order to enhance competition.
    They should be forced to help competitors ``catch 
up''. They should be forced to allow porting of Microsoft 
Office to Linux and Solaris operating systems.



MTC-00027611

From: Greg Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice,
    Microsoft should be allowed the freedom to innovate and compete 
in the competitive software industry. Most of us in this industry 
can see through this case to the real issue of Microsoft's 
competitors attempting to use the legal system as the means to an 
end. I strongly support Microsoft and their freedom to innovate.
    Sincerely,
    Greg H. Allen
    Allen Consulting Services,
    President and CEO.
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00027612

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 28080]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not penalize success.
    Thank You,
    Lewis Hartman
    4867 Granger Road
    Akron, Ohio



MTC-00027613

From: Green, Steve W. (O85)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 7:19am
Subject: Microsoft anti trust settlement
    I believe that the provisions of the agreement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case are tough, reasonable, fair to all parties involved, 
and go beyond the findings of the Court of Appeals ruling. They 
should be enacted as currently agreed without any changes, 
deletions, or additions.



MTC-00027614

From: Joshua Davis
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 7:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The purpose of government is to enforce the laws decided by the 
individuals that we vote into office. To compromise this process 
will compromise the purpose that government holds in our lives. I 
believe this decision is an example of how foolish we become when 
our decisions are dictated by individual financial gain.
    Joshua Davis
    Research Scientist I
    Electronic Systems Lab,
    Georgia Tech Research Institute
    Atlanta, GA 30332
    Phone: 404.894.7554



MTC-00027615

From: Matthew Bromley
To: Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/28/02 7:21am
Subject: Microsoft
    I support microsoft and believe that they should not be 
penalised for being successful. I resent the government's 
characterization of me as a helpless victim who cannot choose 
software that is useful to me. I do not think that the government 
has any right to decide what can be in my computer. I resent the 
idea that a successful business and its products are a threat to 
anyone. The complaint against Microsoft originated not with 
individual consumers, or with Microsoft's partners, but with 
Microsoft's unsuccessful competitors. Failed businesses must not be 
allowed to set the rules for the markets in which they failed. I 
want to see an America where success is not throttled, but embraced. 
I want a free America where anyone with enough intelligence and hard 
work can be a self-made man like Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates. I 
believe Microsoft has a fundamental right to its property. It is the 
government's job is to protect this right, not to take it away.
    matthew bromley



MTC-00027616

From: McCabe, Patrick
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 7:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the purposed settlement is reasonable and fair to 
all parties. Settle this case now and let's get on with business. 
Building better products through innovation is the solution.
    Pat McCabe
    [email protected]



MTC-00027617

From: Dr. Charles Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:25am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I would like to submit this argument to the Microsoft settlement 
consultation process (Tunney act), to the effect that the appeal 
court justice in charge of the DOJ/Microsoft case chould overrule 
the settlement and pursue a strong structural remedy, such as the 
originally proposed breakup. This argument is available online, 
together with comments from interested parties, at: http://
www.advogato.org/article/425.html
    I believe that it is the responsibility of the Department of 
Justice, and not Microsoft, to protect the economic interests of the 
computer industry by protecting competetion and innovation. The DOJ 
strongly argued for this position in its suit against Microsoft, but 
in its recent settlement it has reversed its position, apparently 
concluding that what is good for Microsoft is good for the software 
industry. If the DOJ truly believes this, then it should appeal the 
current verdict. To reverse its previous legal position without 
arguing for this reversal in court is unethical, because this 
constitutes a vacation of its responsibility to uphold the public 
interest.
    I think the above conclusion, that the DOJ has abdicated its 
position as guardian of the public interest, is inescapable if we 
accept the following theses:
    1. Microsoft's responsibility to its shareholders entails its 
aggressive exploitation of the whole of its competitive strengths: 
Microsoft has pursued a clear and consistent position in court. 
While Microsoft's performance in Judge Jackson's court may indicate 
that Microsoft tampered with evidence, where it stands in respect to 
its position as monopoly has been clearly argued with both 
conviction and integrity. It is this: the lesson learned from IBM's 
troubles with antitrust suits in the 1980s is that a dominant 
business in the computer industry can only protect its shareholders 
interests by maintaining its monopoly without being intimidated by 
the threat of antitrust legislation.
    2. In Microsoft's business, only the paranoid survive: 
Furthermore, for Microsoft to maintain its monopolies in an industry 
that changes as quickly as the computer industry means that it must 
extend its monopoly to any new market whose products threaten to 
displace its current monopolies. Microsoft understands that its 
responsibility to shareholders requires it to leverage its existing 
monopoplies to intimidate and undermine rivals in other markets 
whose products possess this power; this is the principal conclusion 
of Judge Jackson in the trial brought by the DOJ.
    3. Microsoft's monopolies injure business innovation, technical 
innovation and price competition in the computer industry: 
Especially they undermine the competitive strengths of alternatives 
developed by companies too small to challenge Microsoft in the 
courts, such as Be's BeOS and Dave Winer's Frontier, and of 
contributions by developers in the free software community such as 
Linux and Zope.
    4. To maintain competition in the markets in which Microsoft 
dominates through its advantages as a monopolist requires Microsoft 
to be successfully limited in the courts.
    5. To restore competition to these markets without infringing 
Microsoft's `right to innovate'' requires a structural 
rather than a behavioural remedy: Microsoft is a `serial 
recidivist': there is a long history of bevioural remedies 
that have failed to deter Microsoft from effective exploitation of 
its monopoly position. The DOJ argued strongly for a break up of 
Microsoft in the trial courts. If it no longer believes that 
Microsoft's monopoly position requires effective legal limits, it 
has a duty to make its reaons for beliving this public. Its failure 
to do so is a very gross failure of its ethical and legal mandate to 
protect competition from monopoly abuse in the computer industry. I 
believe that the courts should pursue a structural remedy, ie. a 
breakup of Microsoft, irrespectively of the DOJ's new position in 
the proposed settlement.
    Dr. Charles Stewart
    (associated with Dept. Computer Science, Brandeis University)



MTC-00027618

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:26am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Those Concerned:
    It is fair to say that Microsoft has been a pioneer in the field 
of computers programming and this computer age. Its motto 
``freedom to innovate'' has resulted in the many 
improvements in the American life, be it commerce, manufacturing, 
transfer of information, individual amenities, learning etc., In 
fact it has impacted every phase of human activity, not only in the 
USA but throughout the world.
    As an ex-Associate Professor (retired) in the field of business 
management, accounting and finance, I have witnessed the development 
of the various Microsoft programs over the 15 years and their impact 
on the students'' ability to use them to accelerate the rate 
and, thus, the volume of learning. It is also fair to say that 
Microsoft's contribution to the other pioneers to create peripheral 
electronic products by providing capital through investing in such 
ventures or providing its products to enable them to build on the 
basis of such information. The cumulative benefit to of all the 
enterprises to humanity has been greatly enhanced,
    The charges brought forth against Microsoft's that business 
activities were monopolistic and the decision issued by Judge T.P 
Jackson has been adequately proven to be an erroneous one over the 
period between its inception of the charges made and the present by 
the mere facts of the industries'' (and substantial competitor

[[Page 28081]]

companies) activities and mode of operations e.g. Aol - Netscape -
Time Warner and many others. I am willing to accept that the 
technical aspect of the law resulted in fines, and that Microsoft is 
willing to go the extra mile to resolve the issue by proposing a, 
more than generous, settlement. which is now being unreasonably 
turned down.
    The penalties that seem to be on the table are substantial and 
extremely unfair to Microsoft's investors who have patiently awaited 
for the day that they will be rewarded in terms of dividends. The 
investors have realized the necessity of reinvestment for the 
development of new and innovative products and the accumulation of 
profits for use for the new products. Now the resources are being 
diverted to other parties'' benefit. I believe this is totally 
unfair if not utterly unwise.
    The stance of the nine states is an extremely self-serving one. 
Who are they to say that their citizens were overcharged on 
Microsoft products? I cannot imagine any individual who feels any 
differently then I. Microsoft did not put a gun to my head to force 
me to buy its product. I did it voluntarily and gladly. I would like 
to know how these state litigants intend to spend the monies that 
they aspire to receive, Surely they don't, and cannot, identify each 
of the product purchaser and give them their refunds. Even if they 
tried, the bureaucratic system would absorb the lion's share of the 
funds, leaving pennies on the dollars to the actual purchasers of 
the product. I for one, am looking for a fair return on my hard 
earned investment. I can only expect that to happen if this case is 
closed and Microsoft can continue to exercise its prerogative and 
right to innovate.
    Microsoft has the right to protect its intellectual property and 
the right to innovate without impediments. Its business practices 
are no different from those of the competitors who have survived the 
present depressed economy.
    ITS TIME TO SETTLE THIS ISSUE AND MOVE ON.
    Respectfully,
    Albert J. Haleblian
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00027619

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:26am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please find attached my sentiments supporting a speedy 
resolution of the Microsoft anti-trust case. I think it would be 
good for our economy.
    Thanks
    Michael Panzera
(See attached file: USAGPanzera--Michael--1078--0121 
.dot)
207 Burlington Road
Freehold, NJ 07728

January 22,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    I am writing to state my support for the settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case. I appreciate your leadership in directing 
your Department to negotiate for three months with Microsoft in 
order to reach this reasonable settlement. It is time now to move 
on.
    Gratitude is what I have for your sensible leadership on this 
matter, Mr. Ashcroft. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Panzera



MTC-00027620

From: Todd Olson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Honorable Court:
    I find it doubtful that the currently proposed remedies for the 
issues of the Microsoft case will succeed in meeting the ruling of 
the Court of Appeals as to what ``a remedies decree in an 
antitrust case must seek''. Herein two additional remedies are 
proposed which I believe substantially improve the resolution of 
this case. Following the statement of the proposals, are comments on 
the motivation and justification of the proposals, which in turn are 
followed by some details of the proposal. Since my experience in 
legal matters is very limited, I hope that others who are more 
experienced will see merit in the general nature of these proposals 
and refine them to a form that is suitable for use in this matter.
PROPOSAL SUMMARIES
    Proposal #1: Jump starting the strangled OEM infrastructure 
for marketing non Microsoft operating systems by requiring Microsoft 
to pay for it's creation.
    Proposal #2: To reduce the probability of future illegal 
monopolization resolve that the only contractal terms between 
Microsoft and other parties that can be litigated and enforced in US 
courts are those that have been made widely and publically available 
adequately prior to the violation of terms in question.
PROPOSAL RATIONAL
    Proposal #1 is a necessary addition to the proposed remedies 
as it is the only way to ``deny to the defendant the fruits of 
its statutory violation''. As long as it is essentially 
impossible to to purchase an intel based desktop computer system 
with a non microsoft operating system (such as BeOS, Lunix, *BSD), 
particularly from a major hardware vendor which has long been a 
problem for both my private activities as a computer hobbiest and my 
professional activities as a computer support provider, as long as 
this situation remains, then Microsoft is enjoying the fruits of its 
past illegal monopolistic behaviour. Normally if merchant X entered 
merchant Y's place of business and destroyed merchant Y's 
merchandise we would say to merchant X ``not only must you not 
do that again, you must renumerate merchant X for the cost of 
undoing the damage you did, so that he can return to 
business''. Why then, if merchant X has carried out this 
distructive behaviour repeatedly for years would w! e only enjoin 
merchant X to stop that behaviour and tell merchant Y that they must 
bear the cost of the damage they have received with out 
renumeration? Do the OEM's actually find the current proposed 
remedies convincing enough that they are willing to make the 
investement to be able to ship computers with non Microsoft 
operating systems? In evaluating the proposed remedies, the court 
should ask the OEM's this question. I suspect that in the absence of 
the addition of proposal #1 they will not, and hence the 
proposed remedies will do little to change the current market 
situation for consumers of computer systems. It is likely more must 
be done.
    Proposal #2 is a necessary addition to the proposed remedies 
as it is the only way to ``ensure that there remain no 
practices likely to result in monopolization in the future''. 
Microsoft's track record in creating innovative ways to bully other 
businesses is sufficently well established that merely (narrowly) 
listing past transgressions and saying ``don't do that 
again'' clearly won't prevent them from undertaking new 
bullying in unlisted areas, particularly new markets. It is in 
everyone's best interest, including Microsoft's, that they grow out 
of this behaviour. It has long been understood that they way to 
minimize egregious bullying behaviour is to require all transactions 
occur in public ... that is why we put lights by ATMs .... and why 
the US constitution goes to some length to require that governmental 
proceedings must no be behind closed doors. Should we abandon this 
sound principle here, when it is most needed?
    I believe that neither of these additional proposals (as 
elaborated below) impose undue burden on Microsoft. I believe they 
are necessary to provide relief and restitution to all of us living 
in a world stunted by Microsofts past practices. I believe that 
these additions will strengthen both the US economy, by freeing it 
from over dependance on one providor of computer services, and also 
strengthen Microsoft, by encouraging it to stop spend so much of 
it's energies on destructive practices, trying to keep the rest of 
the world down, and rechannel those energies to new constructive 
activites.
PROPOSAL DETAILS
    Proposal #1: Jump starting the strangled OEM infrastructure 
for marketing non Microsoft operating systems by requiring Microsoft 
to pay for it's creation.
    The goal is to rapidly create an OEM infrastructure that co-
markets with the current Microsoft OS based computer systems, 
computers that--on the same hardware, out of the box--run 
non-Microsoft operating systems, both in addition to and instead of 
the Microsoft OS ... at minimal additional cost. The deliverable is 
that it be possible to purchase from major OEMs both individually 
and in large quantity, standard hardware that out of the box (a) 
directly boots into at least one non Microsoft operating system (b) 
directly dual boots into at least one non Microsoft operating system 
in a manner easily managed by a novice computer user. (c) directly 
multi boots in to at least two different non Microsoft operating 
systems in a manner easily managed by a novice computer user. Option 
(a) should be available in (say) 4 months, option (b) in (say) 6 
months and option (c) in (say) 8 months.
    One key issue is ensuring that such an infrastructure is not 
unnaturally re-strangled

[[Page 28082]]

by Microsoft (or any other party). Although the effectiveness of the 
proposed remedies to ``unfetter a market from anticompetitive 
conduct'' is doubtful, as a hypothetical, lets take them as 
adequate and pass on to the other key issue which does not appear to 
be addressed in the proposed remedies.
    The other key issue is the cost of creating this infrastructure. 
we propose that Microsoft pay for the creation of this 
infrastructure. This should be viewed in a renumerative rather than 
a punative light. This should be viewed as an aid to recovering what 
would have been had Microsoft not abused it's monopoly.
    There are at least two different types of cost involved:
    (a) the one time costs faced by the OEMs in creating an 
infrastructure that permits them to ship hardware with a variety of 
operating systems.
    (b) the costs (both one time and on going )of ensuring the other 
operating systems to be shipped work on the hardware that is shipped
which suggests at least two different levies on Microsoft assets:
    (a) Microsoft should be assessed a one-time, non-punative, fine 
of some appropriate amount (perhaps US$100,000,000), to be disbursed 
by neutral, knowledgable trusteeship, over a short period of time 
(perhaps 9 months), to the OEMs, for the sole purposes of 
implementing the proposed infrastructure, and getting the alternate 
operating systems working on the shipping hardware.
    (b) A fee, to be paided by Microsoft, to a neutral trusteeship, 
is to be assessed on every copy of Microsoft operating system 
shipped, for some intermediate period of time (perhaps 3 years), and 
is to be used for the sole purpose of underwriting the work of 
keeping the alternative operating systems operating the rapidly 
mutating hardware shipped by the OEMs. The level of the fee will be 
reviewed and adjusted every few months.
    Thought might also be given to levying a fine on Microsoft to be 
used as a startup investement to bring BeOS back to the market 
place. Note that the aim is to bring in to existance what we most 
likely would have had, had Microsoft not strangled it. The aim is 
not to demand that Microsoft underwrite the system beyond some 
reasonable incubation period.
    There are many details to be worked out...
    (1) Who chooses what operating systems are available? It is 
preferable that many choices be made available, and let the customer 
choose. Personally I'd like to be able to choose at least one linux, 
one *BSD, and BeOS.
    (2) Who provides the boot loader? Clearly this should *not* be 
in the hands of Microsoft. It is to be hoped that the industry can 
spec an fully open standard that Microsoft then be compelled to 
comply with.
    (3) What will prevent Microsoft (or other vendors) from having 
their operating system damage other systems installed (over writing 
boot blocks, etc). Perhaps large punative damages if this occurs 
would be appropriate.
    (4) How to ensure that Microsoft does not force the rate of 
(gratuitus) hardware mutation so high (by rapidly changing what 
hardware they support and don't support) that other OS providers are 
exhausted by trying track it? In part by steeply raising the above 
mentioned fee imposed on each shipped Microsoft OS for underwriting 
this work on other OS. And perhaps in part by additional legal 
remedies.
    (5) How to avoid having two hardware systems emerge ... one that 
can not run anything but Microsoft's OS, and one that runs 
everything else?
    (6) Note that Microsoft must have no say in how the various 
moneys are disbursed ... I don't think we can yet trust Microsoft to 
not trojan such an effort.
    (7) How to avoid building the proposed infrastructure in a way 
the Microsoft ends up controlling? Perhaps Microsoft must be 
explicitly forbidden to participate in the infrastructure 
development. Note care should be used to avoid building with pieces 
that Microsoft can end-of-life there by gutting the infrastructure 
shortly after it is built.
    Proposal #2: To reduce the probability of future illegal 
monopolization resolve that the only contractal terms between 
Microsoft and other parties that can be litigated and enforced in US 
courts are those that have been made widely publically available 
adequately prior to the violation of terms in question.
    The goal here is to create an environment where it is much 
harder for Microsoft to engage in the sort of divide and conquor 
bullying tactics of the past. This remedy should be in force for ten 
years. At which point it should be reviewed and extended if need be.
    One way to insure public availability is to levy an annual fine 
on Microsoft that a neutral trusteeship would use to maintain a 
website with all published Microsoft contracts. The website must be 
well connected and widely accessible with a wide range of standards 
complient web browsers in an anonymous manner (no registration, 
etc).
    It is very important that all the information be available to 
everyone. Based on my experiences at the retail computer level, I 
believe that many small business would have choosen other products 
years ago, and hence not be trapped in the current gratuitious 
upgrade intensive, insecure, computing environment they now find 
themselves in, if they had know what sort of business tactics 
Microsoft was using. By making this information open to all, the 
public and the markets can police Microsofts future behaviour, 
rather putting that burden soley, and inappropriately, on the 
courts.
    To guard against obsfuscation, vagueness, and excessive subtlety 
the above fee should also be disbursed periodically to a variety of 
independent evaluators who should be charged with evaluating the 
clarity of the contracts, and the degree to which several innocuous 
interlocking contracts can establish monopolistic dominance. Of 
particular concern are terms such as ``... vendors in good 
standing'' which leaves the meaning of the contract entirely up 
to Microsoft, and are a particular effective form of bullying. 
Appropriate punative fines should be levied if such Microsoft is 
found to be engaging in such evasive and injurous practices.
CLOSING REMARKS
    I believe the above to be necessary in resolving the Microsoft 
case. However it most likely will not be sufficent.
    I hope that the court finds something of use in these remarks.



MTC-00027621

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:31 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The following comments are being submitted pursuant to the 
Tunney Act in response to the proposed settlement of The United 
States v. Microsoft, Inc.
    Sincerely,
    Samuel Greenfeld
    Personal Background:
    I am an electrical engineer presently working for the United 
States Army. Due to outstanding security issues I will not comment 
further about my specific position. I have a bachelors degree in 
electrical & computer engineering and an masters degree in 
engineering with an electrical specialization. I am also a certified 
engineer-in-training in the state of New Jersey.
    In the past I have performed computer consulting where I 
designed and managed entire Internet and Intranet systems. I have 
worked computers systems both reliant and not reliant on Microsoft 
products. In the process I have done limited integration and seen 
the interactions of Microsoft products with those from other firms. 
My comments come from the perspective of an end-user, programmer and 
systems administrator.
    The enclosed comments are to be taken as my personal comments; 
they are NOT necessarily the official views of the U.S. Army, the 
U.S. Government, nor any portion of either organization thereof. Any 
questions about my comments should be directed to the email address 
from which this message was sent.
General Information:
    Microsoft's products have become de-facto standards in the 
United States'' computer market. Approximately 90% of all 
computers presently in use today are estimated to be using a 
Microsoft operating system. The next-nearest competitor is believed 
to be Apple computer, with a market share of approximately 5%.
    The lack of a significant competitor has discouraged 
manufacturers of other devices from supporting other operating 
systems. Many hardware items now are designed primarily for use with 
Microsoft-running computers. ``Winmodems'' and 
``Winprinters'', found in almost any computer store, are 
so named because they and their software drivers rely on features 
found in Microsoft Windows products. Winmodems themselves have 
become so popular due to their low cost that many computer 
manufacturers no longer supply full-featured modems; the term itself 
can be found the packages of many modems in computer 
stores. \1\ In the software world,

[[Page 28083]]

products that do support non-Microsoft operating system (OS) 
platforms tend to charge more for versions that do not run on a 
Microsoft OS. This is largely due to economies of scale since 
Microsoft's operating systems dominate the market. Except for 
certain specialized applications, the high price of programs for 
non-Microsoft operating systems tends to turn off cost-conscious 
companies from purchasing non-Microsoft operating systems and their 
programs in the first place.
    In addition, software and hardware companies often refuse to 
support efforts to use their hardware and/or software on other 
platforms due to the support headaches and expenses this causes. 
This causes problems for projects like SANE \2\, which attempts to 
allow users of Linux (one alternative operating system), to use 
photographic scanners on other platforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An example of a winmodem can be found at http://
www.usr.com/products/home/home-product.asp'sku=3CP5699A . Note the 
description states that the item is ``designed exclusively for 
the Windows operating system.''
    \2\ The SANE Project Internet homepage: http://
www.mostang.com/sane/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shortfalls of the current proposal / Proposed additional remedies:
    The court, having recognized that Microsoft's operating system 
lead has effected competitors, has proposed opening up many of 
Microsoft's programming interfaces, protocols and related to third 
parties.
    While I agree with the court's intent, I personally believe the 
current settlement fails to address the needs of several parties. 
Please find the additional items I wish to be addressed lettered 
below:
    A. The current proposal fails to provide a competitive market 
for third-party replacements of Microsoft middleware and operating 
systems: The settlement as currently written requires Microsoft to 
generate information about its protocols and upcoming interfaces in 
the beta stage of projects \3\. This is a phase too late for 
many firms to match Microsoft's development, and will result almost 
always in Microsoft being first to market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Reference Section III.D of the Competitive Impact 
Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An example of a software project already continuously caught 
lagging behind Microsoft's protocol changes is the Samba 
project. \4\ This project attempts to create an alternative 
client and server for Microsoft's SMB Networking protocol. Given a 
lack of documentation and constant tweaks, quirks, and other issues, 
they constantly find themselves at least a year behind Microsoft's 
current network server protocol revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://www.samba.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order for there to be a level playing field for Microsoft, 
Samba, and other developers (regardless of area), protocols and 
APIs, however tentative, must be made available within sixty (60) 
days of Microsoft's development of them at least for the first five 
(5) years of the settlement. Without such a provision, companies 
will be unable to match Microsoft's market offerings in a timely 
manner, and hence many often fail to produce timely competing 
products.
    B. The current settlement fails to address the needs of 
independent, typically non-commercial and/or ``free'' 
software developers: The Samba project, mentioned above, has no real 
``home-base'' organization that can sign contracts on its 
behalf, nor could be considered a ``business'' by any 
stretch of the imagination.
    While a skilled engineer might be able to build or repair a 
record player or cassette deck, building a home-brew CD or DVD 
player is almost out of the question. Hence, many hobbyists have 
turned to software development. The number of hobbyist-designed 
programs on the market today is significant; they range from paint 
programs to office suites to independent operating systems with 
their own supporting middleware.
    Many companies employ the people working on products such as 
Samba could sign these contracts on their employee's behalf. But 
there is no single business that could sign the necessary paperwork 
to make an alternative version. Non- disclosure agreements may also 
be problematic, as many freely available programs make their source 
code available for others to modify to their unique requirements.
    Since independent and home developers often like to make 
products that compete with Microsoft's products, the settlement must 
be modified so any party, regardless of business, educational, or 
other status, can acquire information on Microsoft's APIs. Such 
terms should allow the resulting end products in the vast majority 
of cases to exist in source code form.
    C. The current proposed settlement fails to include a user 
education segment. Few users change or remove the default programs 
that Microsoft and/or the OEM that built a computer provide. A 
joint-industry effort must be made to educate consumers to ensure 
they understand they have alternatives, even if said alternatives 
cost money over what they paid for software to be included with a 
computer.
    D. The current settlement proposal fails to provide a means to 
identify the party most likely at fault due to a user's problem. 
When software and/or hardware products interfere with one other, the 
makers of the products involved may span several companies. Such 
companies, as those familiar with attempting to get technical 
support are aware, tend to blame each other.
    There must be a clear registry or other source that a user can 
see that tells them whose product is performing can perform function 
on their computer. The registry must state at the very least the 
manufacturer of said item, the installer of said item and a 
technical support contact and means (phone, email, etc.). This 
registry must also note if several products are capable of 
performing said function; these programs may interfere with each 
other as well.
    All ``ll-behaved'' programs made after this registry 
program is incorporated into Microsoft's operating systems (and made 
available for older ones as a retrofit) should use this registry. 
That way both users and technical support personnel are aware as to 
what performs what task on a user's system.



MTC-00027622

From: Scott F Keep
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:31am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I am a lawyer but not an antitrust lawyer. I am not sure I 
understand why the government brought its suit against Microsoft in 
the first place--or to the extent that I understand why the 
suit was brought, I am not sure I agree. In any event the suit was 
brought and there is now a proposed settlement. I am also a consumer 
of computer software and hardware, as are the three other members of 
my family. I believe that this litigation has been expensive for all 
sides. It has added to the cost of computer produces and had a 
chilling effect on the entire computer industry for unknown or 
speculative future gains. While I am a computer consumer/user, I am 
not a guru. I don't need 10 different operating systems. I need one 
that will integrate easily all the different applications. I need 
standardization and easy of integration.
    I believe that settling this litigation now--and the 
quicker the better--is in my family's best interests and in the 
best interests of the vast majority of computer users.



MTC-00027623

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:09am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Case
    I understand you are listening to public opinion on the case 
against Microsoft. That, if I may say, is your first mistake. It is 
not a matter of public opinion whether Microsoft is allowed to be 
free to sell its product to a willing buyer- in a free society. Any 
such transaction has nothing to do with parties outside of that 
transaction. How dare you be so presumptuous! Microsoft has added 
incredible value to all our lives, business and public and must be 
left free to continue its product development and promotion in any 
way it see fit.
    Land of the Free? Only if you realise the evil that this case is 
trying to perpetrate.
    Simon Bates
    Waterloo, London.



MTC-00027624

From: Stuart J. Hysom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses.

[[Page 28084]]

This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If a 
person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from 
those acts and then receive as a ``punishment'' 
instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have 
still benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not 
for the victims of their abuses and not for the American people in 
general. I don't believe that the current proposal provides adequate 
reparations to those injured by Microsoft's anti-competitive 
behavior.
    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,
    Stuart J. Hysom
    Department of Sociology
    Emory University
    1555 Pierce Rd. NE
    Atlanta GA, 30322
    404-727-7510



MTC-00027625

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:54am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a professional computer programmer and computer user for 
almost 2 decades, I feel obligated to make a comment regarding the 
settlement the DOJ has reached with the monopolist Microsoft. Given 
Microsoft's history of using its monopolist position to force its 
way into one market after another and leaving a trail of crushed 
competitors in its wake, I feel the proposed settlement agreement is 
a travesty of justice. Microsoft has the attitude that its behavior 
has benefitted customers when in fact the only entity that has 
benefitted is Microsoft. Furthermore, I strongly believe that 
Microsoft will continue to behave in a manner that will cause 
further violations of the anti-trust act unless the government sends 
it a message, in the form of a *much* stronger punishment, that this 
behavior will not be tolerated.
    As things stand, MS will continue to break the law, and they 
will have to be forced into court to make them comply. Of course, 
all this will take years, as MS will send a swarm of lawyers to 
delay any legal action until it's far too late to do anything about 
it. Microsoft is *right now* using its monopoly to work its way into 
new markets, yet nothing is being done about it. The longer the 
government waits to act, the worse things get for consumers.
    A stiff fine (as a percentage of Microsoft's worth..say 1%), 
separating the operating systems from the applications divisions of 
Microsoft, and forbidding Microsoft from entering any new markets 
for a couple years (to allow a competive environment to develop in 
these new areas) are all required to put Microsoft in a position 
relative to other companies that will allow competition to once 
again thrive to the benefit of the consumer.
    Thomas Swann
    Oviedo, FL



MTC-00027626

From: Eben Moglen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please find attached a filing under 15 U.S.C. Section 16 in 
relation to the above matter.
    Very truly yours.
    Eben Moglen
    Professor of Law
    Columbia Law School,
    435 West 116th Street,
    NYC 10027
    columbia.edu
    voice: 212-854-8382
    fax:212-854-7946
    moglen@
    General Counsel,
    Free Software Foundation http://moglen.law.columbia.edu
January 27, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms Hesse,
    I am Professor of Law at Columbia University Law School in New 
York, and General Counsel (pro bono publico) of the Free Software 
Foundation, a non-profit  501(c)(3) corporation 
organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with 
its headquarters in Boston. I make this statement under the 
provisions of 15 U.S.C.  16(d) concerning the Proposed 
Revised Final Judgment (hereinafter ``the Settlement'') in 
United States v. Microsoft Corp.
    The remedies sought to be effected in the Settlement are, in 
their broad outline, appropriate and reasonable measures for the 
abatement of the illegal conduct proven by the United States at 
trial. The goal of such remedies is to require that Defendant 
affirmatively assist the restoration of competition in the market in 
which the Defendant has been shown to have illegally maintained a 
monopoly in violation of 15 U.S.C.  2. The remedies 
embodied in the Settlement would substantially achieve that goal, 
appropriately furthering the Government's pursuit of the public 
interest, if the Settlement were amended to rectify certain details 
one-sidedly favorable to the Defendant's goal of continuing its 
illegal monopoly.
    Defendant--in the interest of continuing unabated its 
illegal monopoly--has artfully drafted certain clauses of the 
Settlement so as to hobble potential competition, giving the 
appearance of affirmatively assisting to undo its wrong, but 
covertly assisting instead in its continuance.
    The District Court found that the Defendant had illegally 
maintained a monopoly in the market for Intel- compatible PC 
operating systems. (Findings of Fact, November 19, 1999, 
ï¿½ 19.) The mechanism of that mo- nopolization, the court 
found, was the attempt to establish exclusive control of 
``application program interfaces'' (``APIs'') to 
which applications developers resort for operating system services, 
so as to prevent the possibility of ``cross-platform'' 
development threatening Defendant's operating systems monopoly. 
(Findings of Fact, ï¿½ 80 and passim.)
    The Settlement accordingly makes appropriate provision to 
require Microsoft to provide access to full and complete technical 
information about its APIs on non-discriminatory terms, so as to 
prevent Defendant's prior conduct in erecting artificial and illegal 
barriers to entry to the monopolized market.
    But the precise terms of the Settlement create a series of 
artful technical loopholes vitiating the primary intention. Section 
III(D) provides that:
    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. (emphasis added)
    The ``sole purpose'' requirement means that Defendant 
does not have to make any such API information avail- able to 
developers of software whose purpose it is to make competing Intel-
compatible PC operating systems. Only those who make programs that 
interoperate with Windows Operating Systems Products may receive 
such information. Under  III(I)(3), an applications 
developer who has received licensed information concerning De- 
fendant's APIs could be prohibiting from sharing that information 
with a maker of a competing Intel-compatible PC operating system, 
for the purpose of interoperating with that competing product. Under 
 III(I)(2), if a potential competitor in the market for 
Intel-compatible PC operating systems also makes applications 
products, it can even be prohibited from using licensed information 
it receives in order to make those applications interoperate with 
Defendant's products also interoperate with its own competing 
operating system.
    What should be a provision requiring Defendant to share 
information with potential competitors in the monopolized market 
turns out, after Defendant's careful manipulation, to be a provision 
for sharing information ``solely'' with people other than 
competitors in the monopolized market. The same language has been 
inserted into  III(E), thus similarly perverting the 
intention of the Settlement with respect to Communications 
Protocols.
    Defendant has not merely engaged in this undertaking with a goal 
to the exclusion of potential future competitors from the 
monopolized market. In the teeth of the evidence, long after having 
been proved to have behaved with exaggerated contempt for the 
antitrust laws, Defendant is attempting in the very Judgment 
delivered against it to exclude from the market its most vigorous 
current competitor.
    Defendant's most significant present challenger in the Intel-
compatible PC operating systems market is the collection of

[[Page 28085]]

``free software,'' which is free in the sense of freedom, 
not necessarily in price: thousands of programs written 
collaboratively by individuals and organizations throughout the 
world, and made available under license terms that allow everyone to 
freely use, copy, modify and redistribute all the program code. That 
free software, most of it licensed under the terms of the Free 
Software Foundation's GNU General Public License (``the 
GPL'') represents both an operating system, known as GNU, and 
an enormous corpus of applications programs that can run on almost 
all existing architectures of digital computers, including Intel-
compatible PCs.
    Through one such free software component, an operating system 
``kernel'' called Linux, written by thousands of 
individuals and distributed under the GPL, the GNU operating system 
can execute on Intel-compatible PC's, and by combining Linux with 
other free software, GNU can perform all the functions performed by 
Windows. Non-Microsoft Middleware can execute on Intel-compatible 
PCs equipped with components of GNU and Linux. Intel-compatible PCs 
so equipped currently account for more than 30% of the installed 
server base in the United States, according to independent industry 
obsevers.
    The District Court found that ``by itself, Linux's open-
source development model shows no signs of liberating that operating 
system from the cycle of consumer preferences and developer 
incentives that, when fueled by Windows'' enormous reservoir of 
applications, prevents non-Microsoft operating systems from 
competing.'' (Findings of Fact, November 5, 1999, 
ï¿½ 50.) (referring, confusingly, to the combination of 
GNU, Linux, and other programs simply as ``Linux.'') The 
District Court correctly found that in order to compete effectively 
with Defendant in the desktop operating systems market for Intel-
compatible PCs, systems equipped with the free software operating 
system should be able to interoperate with ``the enormous 
reservoir'' of Windows applications.
    There is no inherent barrier to such interoperation, only an 
artificial barrier illegally erected by Defendant. If Defendant were 
required to release information concerning its APIs to the 
developers of free software, GNU, Linux, the X windowing system, the 
WINE Windows emulator, and other relevant free software could inter- 
operate directly with all applications that have been developed for 
Windows. Anyone could execute Windows applications programs bought 
from any developer on Intel-compatible PC's equipped with the 
competing free software operating system. And because, as the 
District Court found, the cost structure of free software is very 
much lower than Defendant's, the competing operating system product 
is and would continue to be available at nominal prices. (Findings 
of Fact, November 5, 1999, ï¿½ 50.)
    That would be too effective a form of competition, from the 
Defendant's point of view. For this reason, Defendant has included 
in the Settlement the terms that exclude from API documentation 
precisely those to whom it would be most logically addressed: 
potential competitors seeking access to the monopolized market. If 
the Settlement were enforced according to its intention, the result 
would be immediate and vigorous competition between Defendant and 
the parties against whom, the District Court found, Defendant was 
illegally maintaining a barrier.
    The Settlement should be amended to level that barrier, which 
the current language inserted by Defendant artfully maintains. The 
language of  III(D) and III(E) should be amended 
to require Defendant to release timely and accurate API information 
to all parties seeking to interoperate programs with either Windows 
Operating System Products or applications written to interoperate 
with Windows Operating System Products.
    For the same reason, Defendant's attempt to continue denying the 
free software development community access to its APIs through the 
imposition of royalty requirements, in  III(I)(1), 
should be removed. As the District Court recognized, free software 
development means that everyone in the world has access, without 
payment of royalties or prohibition of redistribution, to the 
``source code'' of the software. All APIs and other 
interfaces are fully available at all times to anyone who wants to 
interoperate with the existing programs. This, and the ability to 
reuse existing program code in new programs without payment of 
royalties or license fees, permits vast numbers of interoperable, 
high-quality programs to be written by a mixture of volunteers and 
professional project developers for free distribution.
    By authorizing Defendant to engage in non-reciprocity by 
charging royalties for the same information about its programs, thus 
purposefully ousting volunteer developers, and by prohibiting 
``sublicensing,'' thus precluding profit-making developers 
from seeking interoperability with volunteers, the Settlement is 
craftily perverted into a mechanism whereby Defendant can continue 
to withhold API information so as to preclude the operations of 
potential competitors.
    The Settlement should be modified so that  III(I)(1) 
requires reciprocity, by precluding the imposition of royalties on 
developers who make their own APIs fully available without payment 
of royalties or license fees, and so that  III(I)(3) 
precludes limitation on sublicensing, and requires Defendant to 
release API information on terms reciprocal to those on which 
competitors make their own API information available.
    In one additional provision Defendant has attempted to subvert 
the intention of the Settlement in order to preclude effective 
competition by the Intel-compatible free software operating system. 
Under  III(J)(1), Defendant may refuse to disclose 
``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.''
    This provision is so indefinite that Defendant can be expected 
to argue that all APIs and Communications Protocols connected with 
the security and authentication aspects of electronic commerce 
(including especially ``without limitation'' keys and 
authorization tokens, which are the basic building blocks of all 
electronic commerce systems) can be kept secret.
    At present, all such protocols and APIs are public, which is 
appropriate because--as computer security experts would testify 
if, as it should, the District Court seeks evidentiary 
supplementation under 15 U.S.C. 16(f)(1)--security is not 
attained in the computer communications field by the use of secret 
protocols, but rather by the use of scientifically-refereed and 
fully public protocols, whose security has been tested by full 
exposure in the scientific and engineering communities.
    If this provision were enforced as currently drafted, Defendant 
could implement new private protocols, extending or replacing the 
existing public protocols of electronic commerce, and then use its 
monopoly position to exclude the free software operating system from 
use of that de facto industry standard embodied in its new 
unpublicized APIs and Protocols.
    Defendant then goes further in  III(J)(2), according 
to itself the right to establish criteria of ``business 
viability'' without with it may deny access to APIs. 
Considering that its primary competition results from a development 
community led by non-profit organizations and relying heavily on 
non-commercial and volunteer developers, one can only conclude that 
Defendant is once again seeking the appearance of cooperation with 
the rule of law, while preparing by chicane to deny its injured 
competitors their just remedy.
    The Free Software Foundation not only authors and distributes 
the GNU General Public License, and in other ways facilitates the 
making of free software by others, it also manufactures and 
distributes free software products of its own, particularly the GNU 
operating system, and sells compilations of its own and 
others'' free software.
    The Foundation sustains specific injury from the violations set 
forth in the complaint that are not remedied by (and indeed are 
specifically excluded from) the Settlement. The Foundation and the 
other free software developers with whom it acts are the single most 
significant competitor to the Defendant in the monopolized market, 
and the adoption of the Settlement as drafted, with its terms so 
carefully designed by Defendant to preclude its effective 
competition, would be a travesty.
    We urge that the Settlement be amended as we have described.
    Very truly yours,
    Eben Moglen



MTC-00027627

From: Pascal Goguey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Dear Sir, Madam,
    I am not sure my comments will be valid since I am posting from 
abroad. However, it may be a good thing to stress that people

[[Page 28086]]

from the whole world, and not only US are frustrated by Microsoft 
practices, mainly for the following reasons:
    1. Impossibility to buy an Intel-based machine which is not 
preloaded with any of the versions of Microsoft Windows;
    2. Impossibility to get a refund from Microsoft in most of the 
countries when sending back the OS;
    3. Extreme difficulty for an OEM to sell machines equipped with 
alternative operating systems;
    As for the recent settlement, it leaves a lot of room for 
reinforcement of Microsoft's monopolistic position. In particular, 
the fact that Microsoft must provide software for free to school is 
like a powertool in Microsoft's hands: first, it costs them a 
subdollar fee to duplicate the software, and they could even make it 
downloadable, and second, it will be a free advertisement campaign 
as all the students in these schools will become used to their 
products, and therefore more likely to purchase what they are used 
to. The settlement also lacks a true anti-monopolistic policy.
    I am not optimistic enough to think my contribution would change 
anything, but I hope a significant number non-US residents will join 
in the same effort.
    Best regards,
    Pascal Goguey
    Kamigyou-ku Ishiyakushi-cho 699
    Oomiya doori Motoseiganji-sagaru,
    Charmant co-po nishi-jin 302
    602-8226 Kyoto, Japan.
    Work phone: +81 6 6906 3475
    Home phone: +81 75 432 4370



MTC-00027628

From: Josh Fryman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To those involved in the Microsoft settlement case:
    I am writing you to express my concern over the Proposed Final 
Judgement (PFJ) that is being considered. As a PhD student and 
researcher at Georgia Institue of Technology in the College of 
Computing, I note with a technical perspective that the PFJ is not 
in the best interests of the public.
    I have watched Microsoft and its behavior for the past 20-odd 
years, and tell you freely that the glaring tricks present in the 
PFJ will enable Microsoft to continue with their anti-competitive 
practices, and even make the situation worse. The result of being 
found guilty of Anti-Trust laws should leave Microsoft punished and 
--incapable-- of repeating the business decisions and 
practices that fostered such acts.
    While I know the holes in the PFJ to be many and quite large, 
here I will pick just one item and try to bring it to your 
consideration. In the PFJ, Microsoft is required to share the 
Windows operating system APIs with competitors. The wording which 
this is done, however, is so weak and narrow that several problems 
exist.
    1--Microsoft determines who it's competitors are, and what 
pieces of software meet the weak definition of API.
    2--Microsoft clearly states that only for-profit companies 
can even be considered as to whether or not they are competitors, a 
decision again which only Microsoft can render itself. This 
immediately precludes free software, such as the Linux operating 
system of many news articles, from being able to use any information 
Microsoft may release.
    3--Well known and practiced software engineering and 
research terms and definitions, such as API, are rewritten in this 
PFJ such that many Microsoft's own products would not be bound by 
any parts of the PFJ.
    Expressing the concept here in simple terms, if a little over-
simplified, may help your understanding. An ``API'' is an 
overloaded acronym. It has meant in a traditional sense 
``Application Programmer Interface'', or some close 
variant. In a modern sense, the ``API'' is not restricted 
to Applications or Application Programmers, but is meant in a 
broader sense of *any* piece of software interacting with *any 
other* piece of software on a system must do so through a set of 
published interfaces. These interfaces are an ``API''.
    Microsoft has a long history of publishing only part of the API 
suite for it's products, such as Microsoft Windows and Microsoft 
Internet Explorer, to name just two of the multitude. While 
competitors struggle to work with the Microsoft APIs, Microsoft's 
own products use undocumented (unpublished) APIs that are faster, 
simpler, and have more features. (Not all unpublished APIs are 
faster/simpler/etc, but many are.) When competitors discover these 
undocumented APIs, Microsoft has a known habit of changing them to 
break competitors software, starting the cycle over again of hidden 
API discovery.
    Another typical example of Microsoft behavior can be seen in 
their Windows 2000 operating system. They took a known public 
standard, called Kerberos, for secure authentication of users via 
password and login names, for a baseline system and integrated it 
into Windows. Then, to ``extend it'', they very slightly 
modified the behavior to be feature-wise identical but 
implementation-wise incompatible with all other kerberos based 
systems. They then billed this as ``all-new'' technology 
and made their changes a hidden, unpublished secret such that other 
companies'' products could not interface with Microsoft's 
products. Their change? Several ``bits'' in the structure 
of a kerberos message are reserved, but meant to be 0. Microsoft set 
some of these bits to 1, breaking the standard.
    How do these examples relate to the issue at hand? In a very 
simple manner, they illustrate typical Microsoft behavior. Now, in 
the PFJ, Microsoft will be able to set its own standards for who may 
be considered a competitor, and who may see what it considers an 
API. It even allows Microsoft to change the APIs without telling 
anyone until much too late!
    This is unjust. For this one area to be corrected, Microsoft 
should be required to do something along the following lines:
    --All products must have their APIs published and released 
into the public domain. Any patents or copyrights on these API 
designs are also released into the public domain. (Here ``All 
products'' would be restricted to Microsoft Windows, Microsoft 
Internet Explorer, and all other programs that are installed by 
default with any Microsoft Windows operating system product.)
    --Microsoft can not change the API without a 6-month prior 
public notice in DOJ designated major forums for the industry.
    --Microsoft must allow individual components to be opted as 
not installed, as well as removable after installation, without 
degrading the system behavior in any way.
    --Any Microsoft product found to be using undocumented or 
unpublished APIs immediately becomes public domain, and all source 
code, patents, and copyrights are released to the public domain.
    --Any Microsoft product found to be violating the terms of 
this section becomes public domain property, with all source code, 
patents, and copyrights released to the public domain.
    These first three simple guides would allow any and all 
companies to compete with Microsoft in a fair manner. It would also 
prohibit Microsoft from unfairly changing their APIs without giving 
fair warning to competitors. The final clauses are meant to be a 
deterrent to Microsoft for violating these rules.
    These are the types of rules and judgements expected when a 
major monopoly-holder is found guilt of illegally maintaining their 
monopoly and abusing their power. Not the light wrist-slap that the 
PFJ is when examined closely.
    Regards,
    Josh Fryman
    210 Arrowhead Rd
    Bogart, GA 30622
    email: [email protected]
    phone: 706-548-8784
    PhD Student and Researcher
    College of Computing
    Georgia Tech



MTC-00027629

From: Chip Piller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:00am
Subject: microsoft anti trust comments
    I find the terms outlined in the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) 
of the Microsoft Antitrust case to not be in the best interests of 
the public. In general I find that the PFJ does not go far enough in 
it's remedies, that the PFJ should be rewritten so that the language 
and terms used in the document are more clearly defined, and that 
the PFJ be more direct and eliminate exceptions and allowances so as 
to be more restrictive and to eliminate loopholes.
    Section III Prohibited Conduct
    This sections states that the royalty schedule will be 
``established by Microsoft and published on a web site 
accessible to the Plaintiffs and all Covered OEMs''. I would 
like for the schedule to be made available to the general public. 
Also, the nature of the web site and access to the web site both 
need to be defined. The concern here is that Microsoft will prepare 
the web pages and web site in a way that favors or requires the use 
of Microsoft products for proper access.
    III-B-2 permits Microsoft to charge different 
amounts for it's products based upon ``reasonable'' volume 
discounts. The term reasonable must be defined. However,

[[Page 28087]]

even if reasonable is defined this volume discount amounts to 
nothing less than discrimination against small businesses and 
individuals and therefore should not be permitted. The royalties, 
fees, and charge schedule should be uniform across the board and 
should be made public.
    III-B-3 Market development allowances. The court has 
determined that Microsoft is a monopoly and the court has found 
Microsoft guilty of anti-competitive practices. I am opposed to the 
court making provisions for Microsoft for market development. This 
exception makes no sense.
    III-D/E This is a very important section. Microsoft must 
be required to make full and complete disclosure of the API's and 
documentation necessary for interoperating with all Microsoft 
software products, not just the Microsoft operating system.
    This disclosure needs to be made to the general public and 
without charge so that members of the open source programming 
community may develop their software to be compatible with the 
software produced by Microsoft. This disclosure should be changed to 
include items such as the Microsoft file formats used by the 
Microsoft operating system as well as the file formats, 
communication protocols, and authentication methods used by other 
Microsoft products such as Word, Excel, and Exchange.
    In addition I would like to add that I believe that competition 
for Microsoft will come from the open source programming community, 
which is comprised of volunteers around the internet. I would like 
to see the PFJ remedies be available to these people who will then 
be able to make their software compatible with that of Microsoft so 
that consumers will be given a real choice in their software.
    Regards,
    Maurice F. Piller, Jr.
    2631 Blue Meadow Lane
    Knoxville, TN 37932
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00027630

From: Ronald W. Greiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:11am
Subject: Settlement
    1. Please allow the proposed settlement to proceed allowing for 
minor minor adjustments.
    Please allow the State of Oregon to set their own policy for the 
Right to Die. I have voted republican most of my life but sticking 
your nose into this issue make me think your religious feelings are 
more important than my right to choose. They are not!!!!!



MTC-00027631

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 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,
    James Ervin
    625 Washington St
    Kerrville, TX 78028



MTC-00027632

From: 
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tax Compliance--State and Local Tax Services
Ernst & Young LLP--Indianapolis Shared Services Location
5451 Lakeview Parkway South Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46268
Phone: (317) 280-3614
Fax: (317) 280-6102
EYCOMM: 2477726
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    Given the economic recession we are presently in, as well as the 
events of September 11, I think it is absurd how much time, energy, 
and money my government has wasted in pursuing Microsoft. Like only 
a few other times in our nation's history, we should be able to 
discern acts of true hatred and evil, those that cause significant 
amounts of real harm to the citizens of this great country, from the 
acts of an organization that has produced such overwhelmingly 
positive results for not only its people and shareholders, but also 
for its industry and this country as a technological and economic 
super-power. Time does not permit me to go into all the details of 
my position, but I think it is well past the time for the government 
(including the Department of Justice) to get back to protecting 
those that it is supposed to protect.
    I say these things not as a Microsoft employee (or as a relative 
of an employee) or shareholder, but as a taxpayer who funds the 
operations the government of this country. In a capitalist society 
there will always be sour-grapes. I think the founding fathers would 
shudder at the thought of the government tampering as heavily as it 
has with Microsoft.
    Let's let business get back to business, and let's have 
government work on protecting citizens from REAL harm.
    Steve.



MTC-00027633

From: Daniel Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In 1989, Microsoft apparently obtained a patent covering two 
principle components of a W3C recommendation, CSS and XSL. Microsoft 
was a member of the committee drafting the recommendation, and filed 
for the patent during the time the recommendation was being drafted: 
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05860073-- (US5860073: 
Style sheets for publishing system)
    There was some coverage of this sad affair at the time: http://
www.zdnet.com/sp/stories/news/0,4538,2205109,00.html
    The question is, might Microsoft intend to use these patents in 
an attempt to erect new barriers in front of competitors with regard 
to the CSS and XSL standards? What is to prevent that? Considering 
the doubtful circumstances in which the patents were obtained, might 
it not be prudent to compel Microsoft to rescind these patents, or 
equivalently, release them into the public domain, in order to 
ensure that these patents are not misused.
    Daniel Phillips



MTC-00027634

From: Mike Sallman
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to urge you to reconsider the proposed final 
judgment in this case. This settlement does little to deter 
Microsoft from their monopolistic practices and even less to provide 
redress for past anti-competitive activities.
    Microsoft's monopoly stifles innovation, creativity, competition 
and freedom which are the hallmarks of our free-enterprise system.
    Michael Sallman
    IT Administrator
    Fidelity Bank



MTC-00027635

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 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,
    Elizabeth Woods
    R.D. # ! Box 100-A
    Corsica, PA 15829-9635



MTC-00027636

From: Ingham, Richard
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 8:18am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust case

[[Page 28088]]

    This is to comment that I support this ruling. It will be better 
for the economy to move beyond this. The plaintiffs shold not be 
able to win in the courtroom what they cannot win in the 
marketplace.
    Respectfully,
    Richard Ingham
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00027637

From: Bill Hopfer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bill Hopfer
2684 Seneca Drive
Jacksonville, FL 32259
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am outraged that Microsoft was attacked three years ago. The 
antitrust suit has been less about reprimanding illegal activity 
than it has been about greed and jealousy. I would like to see this 
case settled as soon as possible; it has truly been a disgrace. 
Microsoft puts out an excellent product and it has been good for the 
American public by standardizing software with Windows. Where would 
we be without such a user-friendly interface? Back at DOS or Basic, 
trying to communicate with the computer at various prompts and 
having to learn the language of the operating system in order to do 
so.
    The settlement is good for the consumer. The consumer will 
benefit because Windows installation will not be mandatory on most 
computers and both computer makers and users will be allowed to 
reconfigure Windows as they see fit. Microsoft will accordingly 
reformat Windows so that it will support software alternatives.
    I am upset that Microsoft's competitors wish to continue the 
suit against the Microsoft Corporation. This has gone on far too 
long already. It is time to settle. I urge you to support the 
agreement reached last November.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Hopfer



MTC-00027638

From: Nelligan, Michael P
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There are many problems with the proposed settlement. As a user 
of several ``open source'' I would like to address two 
major ones.
    First the required API sharing limits those to whom Microsoft 
would have to make API specifications available in such a way that 
many open source projects could be excluded. Further it allows 
Microsoft to place limits on how such specifications may be used or 
distributed. In order to be more fair Microsoft should be required 
to make ALL APIs publicly available so that all software producers 
(large or small, profitable or not) could benefit and continue to 
work on developing competitive products.
    Second, the settlement makes no mention of file format 
specifications; for example Word .doc files and Excel .xls files. 
Microsoft uses its file formats to make it more difficult for 
competing products to compete by not publishing the format 
specifications and by changing with most new versions of their 
software. Because of this projects to create competing software must 
spend excessive amounts of developer time and effort in figuring out 
how to be compatible with Microsoft's products. Supporters of 
Microsoft frequently point to a failure to read and write Microsoft 
file formats as a reason why competing products are not as good as 
Microsoft's products. In the trial Microsoft pointed to open source 
products as potential dangerous competitors for themselves. The 
judge did not find that such products were competitive but did 
believe that they could be. To allow Microsoft to use the Final 
Judgment to limit the ability of open source projects to produce 
strong compatible by competing projects would defeat the intention 
of using the judgment to promote competitiveness in the market 
place.
    Thank you for considering these objections.
    Michael P. Nelligan Network Systems Analyst for Battelle 
Memorial Institute,
    505 King Ave., Columbus, Ohio, 43201
    Resident of Ohio at 60 Euclid Ave., Columbus, OH 43201



MTC-00027639

From: Dale Wiener
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft
    The lawsuit forged against Microsoft by the Department of 
Justice was uncalled for. Microsoft has been painted in a bad light 
through this litigation. The only thing Microsoft is guilty of is 
providing consumers with superior products. The purpose of this 
letter, however, is to express my support of the settlement.
    The settlement came at great cost for Microsoft. Microsoft has 
agreed to disclose the internal interfaces of its Windows operating 
network. This is revolutionary in that it allows Microsoft 
competitors to gain access to interface. Interface disclosure will 
further allow developers to replace competing software into the 
Windows'' system.
    I believe that these sacrifices are necessary only in that they 
allow Microsoft to begin concentrating solely on the practice of 
software design.
    Sincerely
    Waltraud Wiener



MTC-00027640

From: Morris, Mitchell
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 8:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my objection to the proposed settlement 
in US v. Microsoft. Specifically, I object to section III.J.2.c 
wherein Microsoft reserves the right to refuse to disclose 
information to entities which don't meet Microsoft's standards for 
business viability. Given our American tradition of individual 
effort and entrepreneurship, I find this claim that a citizen must 
prove his business viability to Microsoft's satisfaction before 
being allowed to compete in the marketplace to be most distasteful.
    Thank you,
    Mitchell Morris



MTC-00027641

From: Frank Biggs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Based upon reading the decision, I do not believe this 
adequately addresses the issues of the Microsoft case. It fails to 
punish past practices that the DOJ proved or to prevent future 
actions of the same nature by Microsoft. The wording of the decision 
will allow Microsoft to manipulate the language to its advantage and 
to continue its activities virtually unabated. With this in mind, 
the decision should be rejected.
    John F Biggs II
    12346 Swan Wings Place
    Huntersville NC 28078



MTC-00027642

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am an academic computer user of some years'' experience. 
I avoid Microsoft software as much as possible. On occasions when I 
have used it, I have found it to be unreliable, insecure and prone 
to viruses. Most of the people I speak to who do use it feel that it 
is imposed upon them, that they have no real choice, and have 
submitted with a ``you can't fight city hall'' attitude. 
This letter is a small attempt at fighting city hall.
    In my view the two worst aspects of the Microsoft Corporation's 
behavior are its bullying tactics and its deliberate subversion of 
standards such as email and web-page formats. These are difficult 
practices to legislate specifically against, but they are made 
possible by the sheer size and power of Microsoft, which is why the 
original idea breaking up the corporation was a good one. Smaller, 
competing companies could not commit such abuses as successfully. 
Although it is difficult to frame rules to outlaw bullying as such, 
there are several specific instances of it that could be prevented, 
but are not, in the proposed settlement. One is forcing 
manufacturers to include a Microsoft operating system with their 
computers, whether or not the customer wants one. Another is 
forbidding the use of free software in conjunction with various 
program components. Both of these are outrageous impositions on the 
customer, made possible only by Microsoft's monopoly position. In 
fact the only time I run a Microsoft operating system these days is 
to do my income taxes. I don't know for certain why no one produces 
a tax program for, say, Linux, or some other Unix-like operating 
system. It would be simple enough to do. The tax programs are simple 
combinations of well-established spreadsheet and browser 
technologies, and don't depend on the operating system to any 
serious extent. It

[[Page 28089]]

would be quick and cheap to port the tax programs I have used to 
Linux, and the Linux market, while not comparable in size to the 
Microsoft one, must be large enough to be profitable for such a 
small extra outlay of effort. My guess, however, is that the 
potential profit is not big enough to offset the threat of 
retaliation by Microsoft. They are big enough that all they need to 
do is hint at retaliation.
    Another general tendency that cannot be prevented outright, but 
could be better curbed than it is in the proposed settlement, is 
acting as if Microsoft owned the user's computer. Their software has 
always made unannounced edits to system files and replaced system 
components at will. Now they are putting in license provisions that 
have the effect of requiring the user to get their permission to 
upgrade his/her own hardware. Surely it must be possible to force 
them to give the buyer of software the right to use it as he/she 
sees fit, within the general framework of the law.
    Although these are not the only shortcomings of the proposed 
settlement, they are the ones that seem most vital to me. I'm sure 
that others will write to you focussing on different ones.
    Yours respectfully,
    Stephen Isard



MTC-00027643

From: Bob Gordon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The current ``settlement'' is a bad one because it 
does not address the basic issue of Microsoft's monopoly of of 
desktop operating systems.



MTC-00027644

From: Kevin Krumwiede
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a student and independent software developer. Though I am 
not well-versed in legal matters, I found the provisions of the 
proposed Microsoft settlement fairly easy to understand. However, as 
an independent software developer, I believe I have a much better 
understanding of their implications than the average person.
    I do not believe the provisions of the proposed settlement will 
significantly affect Microsoft's stranglehold on the market, for the 
reasons I have outlined below. It is important to remember that 
Microsoft basically invented the industry they dominate. Microsoft's 
rise to power was contemporary and symbiotic with the invention and 
widespread adoption of personal computers. Prior to that time, 
computers were not consumer products. It was largely a hardware 
market, and software was something that just came with the hardware. 
Much of the software in use was independently developed and freely 
distributed. Microsoft cunningly exploited the growing PC market to 
gain a monopoly on the operating systems and software that runs 
them.
    Today, the only significant threat to Microsoft's monopoly is 
the same kind of independently-developed, freely-distributed 
software that existed before it--software developed by people 
like me. Perhaps as a blacklash against Microsoft's business 
practices, and spearheaded by the operating system known as Linux, 
free software has made a significant comeback in limited areas of 
the market. However, it has been unable to gain a foothold on the 
desktop--the market for operating systems and applications 
currently dominated by Windows 98/ME/XP, Microsoft Office, and 
Internet Explorer-- for reasons not sufficiently remedied by 
the proposed settlement.
    The settlement wisely recognizes the ubiquity of Microsoft's 
proprietary APIs and protocols and the necessity of making them 
available to developers who can't compete without them and often 
can't (legally) reverse-engineer them (sections III.D and III.E). 
Conspicuously lacking is a similar provision concerning proprietary 
file formats, which are crucual to any interoperability with 
Microsoft's Office products. To its credit, the settlement also 
prohibits many of the anti-competitive practices that Microsoft has 
used to maintain its monopoly.
    But here is the key shortcoming of the proposed settlement: none 
of its provisions benefit Microsoft's real competition, the free 
software developers. We are not officially-recognized ISV's, IHV's, 
IAP's, ICP's, or OEM's; we are a loose-knit organization of 
individuals around the world, working on countless independent 
projects in our free time and with no expectation of monetary 
retribution. Few of us would ever ``[have] a reasonable 
business need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol 
for a planned or shipping product'' (section III.J.2(b)) or 
``[meet] reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability'' of 
our development efforts (section III.J.2(c)).
    Few of us would meet the ``reasonable and non-
discriminatory'' terms of the provisions (particularly section 
III.I.1) and thus would not benefit from sections III.D and III.E. 
Likewise, few of us can afford to ``submit, at [our] own 
expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or 
Communication Protocols to third-party verification'' (section 
III.J.2.(d)). The solution, as I see it, is to require that 
Microsoft publish the specifications of its proprietary APIs, 
protocols, and file formats, making them available not just to 
qualifying competitors, but to all competitors. This would ensure 
interoperability of all independently-developed software with 
Microsoft's products, eliminating the single greatest obstacle 
Microsoft has employed to keep upstart competitors out of the 
market.
    Thank you for considering my comments.
    Kevin J. Krumwiede
    1807 Woodlands Drive
    Smyrna, GA 30080
    (770) 431-8185



MTC-00027645

From: Ty van den Akker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am vehemently OPPOSED to the proposed settlement on the 
grounds that the settlement is too narrowly defined to be of any 
lasting effect in the dynamic software industry.
    Ty van den Akker
    Arlington, MA 02474
    Ty van den Akker
    [email protected]
    (617) 426-4277 x311
    Oculus Technologies Corp.
    http://www.oculustech.com
    Boston, MA



MTC-00027646

From: Edward Remmers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney-General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to endorse the proposed Microsoft Settelement. I 
think that it is fair, but very onerous. Unfortunately, there are 
critics who wish to impose a ``success tax'' on Microsoft. 
In my opinion, this is very unfair. These critics wish to dismantle 
the free enterprise system in the U.S. Unfortunately, critics of 
Microsoft sound like ``cry babies.'' Instead of crying, 
they should work at out-performing Microsoft. I strongly urge you 
not to respond to the ``cry babies.'' Many states have 
accepted the proposed settlement as fair.
    Please have the DOJ accept the proposed settlement. Only the 
trial lawyers will benefit financially from this case. Please place 
the interest of our country above the interests of the ``cry 
babies'' and trial lawyers trying to line their pockets.
    Edward G. Remmers



MTC-00027647

From: Anthony Cullen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a raw deal for consumers and does very little, 
practically speaking, to redress the harm done to consumers or to 
prevent further harm in the future.
    Anthony P Cullen
    S/390 Technology and Architecture Division
    Alliance Custom Microprocessor Design
    D/zdza ms p/312 914-435-4758



MTC-00027648

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 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

[[Page 28090]]

most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    BETTY RIDGE
    10549 54 AVENUE NORTH
    ST PETERSBURG, FL 33708



MTC-00027649

From: Charles Boncelet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:37am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am a Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering, with 
a joint appointment in Computer & Information Sciences at the 
University of Delaware. I have published widely in these areas for 
20 years. In my opinion, the proposed settlement does nothing to 
curb Microsoft's excesses. Over the years, Microsoft has used (and 
abused) its monopoly position to stifle innovation and eliminate the 
competition in many ways.
    I suggest Microsoft be split into two companies, one responsible 
for operating systems (e.g., Windows) and one for applications, 
e.g., Office. Failing that, the government should insist on at least 
three things:
    1. The file formats used by applications such as Office should 
be made open the public. This would allow other, generally much 
smaller, companies to produce products that interoperate with 
Microsoft's. (What Microsoft did to the the office productivity 
software producers far exceeded in its venality what they did to 
Netscape in the browser wars.)
    2. Any networking standards used in Microsoft products should be 
open and public. Again, this would allow other products to 
interoperate with Microsoft's. This is crucial in a modern, 
networked computer world.
    3. Disallow any contracts between Microsoft and computer vendors 
that restrict the ability of the computer vendors to supply 
alternative software and operating systems on their computers. 
Computer vendors should be allowed without penalty to produce 
machines that run linux, BEOS, MAC OS, etc without interference from 
or tithing due to Microsoft. Microsoft has been a cancer on the 
industry. Please do not allow them to continue.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Boncelet
    (work) 302-831-8008
    Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering
    (fax) 302-831-4316
    University of Delaware, Newark DE 19716
    http://www.eecis.udel.edu/boncelet/
    Email: please use [email protected], 
[email protected], or
    [email protected]. Other addresses are 
unreliable. 
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027650

From: Kukla, Jim
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. The 
information contained in this e-mail including any attachments may 
constitute Corvis Corporation Proprietary Information that is 
subject to Non-Disclosure Agreement and cannot be disclosed to any 
other party without the express consent of Corvis Corporation. If 
you are neither the intended recipient of this e-mail nor 
responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, 
note that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or retention of 
this e-mail is prohibited.
    If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, we 
request that you notify the sender by return e-mail and then delete 
this e-mail and any return e-mail immediately.



MTC-00027651

From: Kalisvaart, Adri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lincoln RI, January 27, 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
e-mail: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mrs. Hesse,
    I am an immigrant from Germany and I remember how my parents 
became accomplices in the crimes committed by their government by 
virtue of being Germans. That is the reason why I must register my 
opposition to the injustice done to Microsoft by the Justice 
Department. My reasons are best expressed in a letter of mine in the 
12/6/99 issue of TIME. Therefore, I am sending you the unedited 
version of that letter.
    Dear Time Editor:
    Lynching is alive and well in America. No, not in some backward 
corner of these United States. This time the lynching takes place in 
Time [November 15, 1999 Busting Bill] and on CNN for the whole world 
to watch. This time the Justice Department of the United States of 
America is proudly committing this heinous crime.
    Who is being lynched? No, not some unfortunate person for having 
the wrong skin color. This time the victim is a productive genius 
and creator of wealth for himself, for me and for countless millions 
around the globe. It is Bill Gates.
    Yes, there is a criminal in the case of US versus MS, but it is 
not Microsoft. I resent it very much that I am an accomplice to this 
crime by virtue of being an American. What is most appalling in this 
case is the victim's inability to defend himself. Bill Gates should 
have demanded that the Justice Department cease violating his 
inalienable rights--namely, his right to his life, his liberty 
and his property. By failing to do so, Bill Gates has become an 
accomplice in his lynching.
    Sincerely, Adri Kalisvaart
    5 Wake Robin Road # 2004
    Lincoln RI 02865-5220
    Home Tel: (401) 333 6303
    Office Tel: (508) 236 1021
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00027652

From: Timothy McGinnis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
See attached
Timothy S. McGinnis


MTC-00027652 0001
1929 Pendelton Drive
Raleigh NC 27614
January 27,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As you know, Microsoft has been undergoing a three-year lawsuit 
by the US government and I'm using this opportunity to voice the 
opinion of the average American consumer.
    I am an IT professional and use the products of many vendors 
including Microsoft's. My colleagues and I have stated many times 
that Microsoft has been the main contributor to the success and 
growth of the industry. This lawsuit has given an unfair advantage 
to other software providers who seem to be capitalizing on this 
misfortune. What we need to do is move this case out of Federal 
Court once and for all and stop wasting the time and money of 
American people. Microsoft should not have to be spending its budget 
on legal matters, instead, investing it on creating new more 
efficient software to bring our world further into the technological 
evolution that we've headed in. Microsoft has played a phenomenal 
role in the success of our country's economy, both locally and 
globally, and for the good of all consumers, seeing Microsoft free 
from litigation will help boost this recession we're in out the 
door.
    The settlement should be embraced to make supporters and 
competitors satisfied with the procession of production in the IT 
industry and the competitive market. The settlement will ensure the 
compliance of Microsoft's actions as pro-competitive. Let our 
country move on from this lawsuit and get on with more serious 
issues plaguing our nation. I thank you for your attention and 
ongoing support for the American consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy McGinnis



MTC-00027653

From: Mark Gryska
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir(s) Madam(s),
    I find the proposed settlement of the Microsoft case 
unsatisfactory. As a computer professional for more than 15 years I 
have watched Microsoft grow from a small company to a very large 
company. In that time I have been dismayed by the business practices 
of the company which I feel have stifled technical innovation by 
means of broken standards and aggressive actions towards its 
competitors. As a consumer and user of Netscape Navigator I feel 
that I have been harmed by the tactics by which Microsoft sought to 
make Internet Explorer the number one browser.
    I see further signs that the company is making in roads in 3D 
gaming and stands to

[[Page 28091]]

follow much the same pattern as it has in the past. I believe that 
the company should be broken up into at least 3 seperate entities 
and face heavy fines.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Gryska



MTC-00027654

From: Lea Blanton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 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 and the 
settlement that was reached in November. Microsoft has pledged to 
carry out all provisions of this agreement and create more 
opportunities for competing companies. Under this agreement, 
Microsoft must license its Windows operating system products to the 
20 largest computer makers. Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate 
against computer makers who ship software that competes with 
anything in its Windows operating system. The settlement contains 
many guidelines that Microsoft has fully agreed to uphold.
    I see no reason to continue costly and expensive litigation that 
drives down stock prices and contributes additional uncertainty to 
individual and organizational purchasing plans in an already 
uncertain economy. This settlement will serve in the best public 
interest. Please support the November settlement.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Lea M. Blanton
    611 Westridge Drive
    Burlington, NC 27215



MTC-00027655

From: Manohar Hora
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir:
    It is very unfortunate that in spite of all the advances that 
have happened in the Tech Industry, you are after Micro soft that is 
responsible for the advances. why don't you waste public money on 
some thing worthwhile. History will tell that the Justice Dept. was 
responsible for the down fall of US Computer Industry. This is 
business. Let every one struggle without any help from the Govt.
    One concerned citizen



MTC-00027656

From: dkitts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Will you PLEASE leave Microsoft alone and end this case now. As 
an IT professional, I see many of my peers in jeopardy of layoff or 
already looking for jobs due to the slowing of companies application 
development cycles. Much of this has to do with the economy, but 
when times are tough economically, companies stop spending on 
``risky'' investments. The turmoil surrounding the 
Microsoft case has made companies put many projects on hold due to 
anxiety on the base operating systems to run the applications on. 
The anti-trust case is helping to keep that up! I believe that a 
quick settlement will help bolster the economy, help the .com 
industry back on it's feet and will be the best thing for the United 
States.
    I also believe that Microsoft has had a historically better 
record of keeping the consumer and businesses best welfare in mind 
than most other vendors. BEFORE MS, companies like Apple charged 
OUTRAGEOUS amounts of money for their software, particularly 
operating systems. Now, you can buy sophisticated operating systems 
like Windows 2000 Professional for under $400!!!!
    I also thoroughly believe that Microsoft came to market years 
ago with better, more consumer friendly products than Netscape and 
AOL and therefore deserved to win the market share they have. When a 
truly better product IS available, I'm sure the IT industry will 
flock to it. Look at the interest in Linux! It is mainly a warmed up 
version of the venerable UNIX operating system, but they have sold 
TONS of copies just out of curiosity of the IT industry. If Linux 
ever is proven to be better, it will flood the IT landscape in 
months...but, at this point, it is simply not technically better or 
more efficient. (By the way, IT professionals will argue UNIX vs. 
Windows vs. whatever forever, much like teenage boys will argue over 
which was faster, Pontiac or Ford)
    As far as Netscape goes, a few years ago I attended a Netscape 
Professional Developers Conference (sponsored by Netscape). At that 
point in time they pretty much stated on an emotional, not logical, 
level that they hated MS. They didn't even want to build a Web 
server to run on a Microsoft platform!!! I believe that Netscape 
(AOL) will whine forever about Microsoft and will always be trying 
to manipulate the courts, the DOJ or whoever they can to try to 
``compete'' with Microsoft. This is not because the are 
not allowed to compete in the market place, it is because they just 
simply cannot produce anything better than equivalent products. 
Please stop wasting my tax money on Microsoft...I'd much rather pay 
for the War on Terrorism. Even if the amount of money spent on the 
Microsoft Anti
    Trust case only equates to one day of expense for the War on 
Terrorism, I'd MUCH rather spend the money on day hunting for bin 
Laden, than years hunting Bill Gates.
    Just my humble opinions,
    D. Frank Kitts
    [email protected]



MTC-00027657

From: Srivastava, Samir
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 8:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam/sir,
    Please note my wish as a citzen of the United States of America 
to disagree with the settlement as offered by the Justice Department 
to resolve the Microsoft monopoly case.
    As I understand it, the goal of the Justice department should be 
to ensure that a fair and just solution be implemented in the 
interest of the American Public, as well as sufficient punishment 
for the wrong doing engaged in by Microsoft. I believe the current 
soultion offered fails on both counts listed above. Microsoft has 
been found to be a monopoly (this in itself is OK) in operating 
systems, but they have been found to use this power to inhibit 
competition and gain market share in other areas such as browsers 
and Office productivity software. This behavior was rightly found to 
be illegal. Sufficient punishment demands that they be prevented 
from engaging in this kind of practice ever again.
    Under the current proposal, Microsoft would get lots of legal 
``wiggle room'' to comply with the letter of the law but 
not the intent of the law. Since Microsoft has previously proven to 
be very good at avoiding complience (the original consent decree 
from the 1980's), one can assume without a doubt that Microsoft will 
again play these games. So, the punishment part of the proposal must 
be designed so that Microsoft will not have anything to gain by 
playing legal games. It should be a very large cash fine, as this is 
the only way to get the attention of high paid executives that 
consider themselves above the law.
    Secondly, for a fair and just solution for the American public, 
the Justice department should rule that Microsoft has to publish all 
the data formats for its data files. This should not be a burden to 
Microsoft. These data formats are important because one has to have 
knowledge about the formats to read the data. As it stands, 
Microsoft does not share this data with the industry and prevents 
other companies from being able to read its data formats, such as MS 
Word files for example.
    There is no reason that MS Word files from one user need to be 
read only by another MS Word user, except for the fact that it is 
difficult and time consuming to decode by anyone else without 
information from Microsoft. This is analagous to AT&T only being 
able to call other AT&T customers or phones. But this is not the 
case, in fact, in the telecommunications industry the signalling 
standards (or data format) for a call are well known public 
information.
    This means that if I want to phone home to the USA from 
Switzerland, all I need to do is call my number in the USA. Because 
the signalling standards are known by everyone, the Swisscom phone 
switch can convert my request such that is easily decoded by the 
AT&T phone switch. With this well known or open data format, the 
public is well served. Notice that there is no affect to the 
intellectual property of AT&T or Swisscom. The public does not 
know or care how the phone switches work as this is not published, 
but only that the data formats are known so the systems can 
interoperate.
    I believe that the same model should be applied to the Microsoft 
case. I don't care what they put into windows, but when they take 
the data formats for the Internet browser, MS Office suites and a 
host of other programs and refuse to share the formats publicly, the 
public will have no choice but to use only Microsoft software to be 
able to decode them. Notice that even on the Mac platform, one

[[Page 28092]]

must use MS Office programs to be able to read a Word document sent 
by someone else.
    I sincerely hope that you will read my proposal and implement a 
tough but fair solution in the Microsoft case. Please make sure that 
the American people win in the name of justice, fairness and 
innovation for the sake of a free world.
    Thank you for giving the American public a chance to comment on 
this issue.
    Thank You and regards,
    Samir Srivastava
    Core Network Engineer
    COLT Telecom AG
    Badenerstrasse 820
    CH-8048 Zrich
    t: +41 1 5 600 900
    f: +41 1 5 600 910
    e: mailto:[email protected]
    www.colt.ch
    we make business straight.forward



MTC-00027658

From: Chris Hanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am President of a small software and consulting company named 
bDistributed.com, Inc., located in the Chicago area. (Web site and 
contact information below.) As President of a company that develops 
software primarily for the Apple Macintosh and Sun's Java 
technology, I strongly believe that the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement does not go far enough to I don't think any behavioral 
remedy will work on Microsoft. They have an established pattern of 
behavior of ignoring behavior remedies, disobeying court orders, 
lying to federal judges, and so on. The only remedy that will work 
and restore competition to the marketplace is structural: The 
company needs to be broken up and there needs to be heavy government 
oversight not only of the resulting ``Nanosofts'', but of 
the interactions between them and the rest of the market.
    Here's my recipe for a workable breakup: Nanosoft 1 does only 
operating systems (both workstation and server). Nanosoft 2 does 
does only workstation applications, including Office, the Outlook 
client, the Messenger client, the NetMeeting client, and so on. 
Nanosoft 3 does only server applications, including SQL Server, the 
Outlook server, the Messenger server, the NetMeeting server, etc. 
Nanosoft 4 is the content company (MSN).
    The workstation and server application companies would only be 
allowed to communicate through open, publicly-documented protocols. 
In other words, other companies could write fully-functional 
Microsoft Exchange clients that compete with Microsoft Outlook 
without reverse-engineering. And so on. Also, I believe that 
Microsoft needs to be compelled to support the competitors they 
harmed for a certain period. Microsoft should be required to do the 
following:
    (1) Bundle AOL Time Warner's Netscape web browser with the 
Windows operating system for a period of 5 years, and work with all 
interested external developers to make it possible to fully replace 
Internet Explorer as the default browser (including in places like 
the help system).
    (2) Bundle Apple's QuickTime multimedia technology with the 
Windows operating system, and make it possible to use it instead of 
Windows Media Player for all multimedia access and playback on the 
system. Microsoft is currently attempting to use its monopoly power 
in operating systems software to extend its monopoly in multimedia 
playback--AFTER BEING RULED A MONOPOLY--and this action is 
necessary to counter that attempt.
    (3) Continue to support, promote, and keep up-to-date Microsoft 
Office on the Apple Macintosh for a period of 5 years, and expand 
their support to include up-to-date Macintosh versions of the 
Microsoft Outlook email and scheduling application (or add 100%-
compatible functionality to the Microsoft Entourage for Macintosh 
email and scheduling application), the Microsoft Access database, 
and the Microsoft Project project management application.
    (4) Publish all specifications for all native data formats and 
protocols of all Microsoft applications under a royalty-free and 
non-discriminatory license, IN PERPETUITY, allowing developers to 
create applications both for Windows and for other platforms that 
compete directly with Microsoft applications with a reasonable 
guarantee of 100% compatibility.
    I believe the steps above are necessary to restore healthy 
competition to the computer software marketplace. Even without a 
structural remedy, the above steps would go a long way; with a 
structural remedy, the above steps would ensure non-Microsoft 
software developers are on a more level playing field than the 
current settlement proposal allows. And without at least (2) through 
(4) above, Microsoft is effectively unrestrained from eliminating 
its remaining competition. We cannot let this happen if the software 
industry is to remain a vital and growing sector of the worldwide 
economy, because without the return of true competition it will 
stagnate.
    --Chris
    Christopher M. Hanson, President
    Email: [email protected]
    bDistributed.com, Inc.
    Phone: +1-847-372-3955
    Making Business Distributed
    Fax: +1-847-589-3738
    http://bdistributed.com/
    Personal Email: [email protected]



MTC-00027659

From: Sean Chisek
To: Microsoft ATR,Ron Steward
Date: 1/28/02 8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The propoesed settlement is bad for consumers and useless as far 
as breaking the Microsoft monopoly.
    Sean Chisek



MTC-00027660

From: Victor Laties
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please continue the court action against that predatory company 
Microsoft. Don't be influenced by the intense lobbying effort on the 
part of that company. Netscape was the originator and the most 
innovative outfit to work in this area. Microsoft acted as a bully 
and is certainly in a monopy position right now. Nothing in the 
proposed settlement will serve the public influence.
    Victor Laties



MTC-00027661

From: Chris Hanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    (This is an amended version of a message I sent accidentally. 
One item, (5) below, was added to a list of suggested remedies.) I 
am President of a small software and consulting company named 
bDistributed.com, Inc., located in the Chicago area. (Web site and 
contact information below.) As President of a company that develops 
software primarily for the Apple Macintosh and Sun's Java 
technology, I strongly believe that the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement does not go far enough to I don't think any behavioral 
remedy will work on Microsoft. They have an established pattern of 
behavior of ignoring behavior remedies, disobeying court orders, 
lying to federal judges, and so on. The only remedy that will work 
and restore competition to the marketplace is structural: The 
company needs to be broken up and there needs to be heavy government 
oversight not only of the resulting ``Nanosofts'', but of 
the interactions between them and the rest of the market. Here's my 
recipe for a workable breakup: Nanosoft 1 does only operating 
systems (both workstation and server). Nanosoft 2 does does only 
workstation applications, including Office, the Outlook client, the 
Messenger client, the NetMeeting client, and so on. Nanosoft 3 does 
only server applications, including SQL Server, the Outlook server, 
the Messenger server, the NetMeeting server, etc. Nanosoft 4 is the 
content company (MSN).
    The workstation and server application companies would only be 
allowed to communicate through open, publicly-documented protocols. 
In other words, other companies could write fully-functional 
Microsoft Exchange clients that compete with Microsoft Outlook 
without reverse-engineering. And so on.
    Also, I believe that Microsoft needs to be compelled to support 
the competitors they harmed for a certain period. Microsoft should 
be required to do the following:
    (1) Bundle AOL Time Warner's Netscape web browser with the 
Windows operating system for a period of 5 years, and work with all 
interested external developers to make it possible to fully replace 
Internet Explorer as the default browser (including in places like 
the help system).
    (2) Bundle Apple's QuickTime multimedia technology with the 
Windows operating system, and make it possible to use it instead of 
Windows Media Player for all multimedia access and playback on the 
system. Microsoft is currently attempting to use its monopoly power 
in operating systems software to extend its monopoly in multimedia 
playback--AFTER BEING RULED A MONOPOLY--and this action is 
necessary to counter that attempt.
    (3) Continue to support, promote, and keep up-to-date Microsoft 
Office on the Apple

[[Page 28093]]

Macintosh for a period of 5 years, and expand their support to 
include up-to-date Macintosh versions of the Microsoft Outlook email 
and scheduling application (or add 100%-compatible functionality to 
the Microsoft Entourage for Macintosh email and scheduling 
application), the Microsoft Access database, and the Microsoft 
Project project management application.
    (4) Publish all specifications for all native data formats and 
protocols of all Microsoft applications under a royalty-free and 
non-discriminatory license, IN PERPETUITY, allowing developers to 
create applications both for Windows and for other platforms that 
compete directly with Microsoft applications with a reasonable 
guarantee of 100% compatibility.
    (5) Include the latest version of Sun's Java Virtual Machine 
with the Windows operating system for a period of 5 years, and 
ensure it works properly ``out of the box.'' Java provides 
developers with the ability to easily create rich software 
applications that work well both on Windows and on other operating 
systems like Apple's Mac OS X and the Linux operating system. By 
including good support for Java with Windows, developer risk in 
writing for Java would be greatly reduced. I believe the steps above 
are necessary to restore healthy competition to the computer 
software marketplace. Even without a structural remedy, the above 
steps would go a long way; with a structural remedy, the above steps 
would ensure non-Microsoft software developers are on a more level 
playing field than the current settlement proposal allows. And 
without at least (2) through (5) above, Microsoft is effectively 
unrestrained from eliminating its remaining competition. We cannot 
let this happen if the software industry is to remain a vital and 
growing sector of the worldwide economy, because without the return 
of true competition it will stagnate.
    Chris
    Chris Hanson
    Email: [email protected]
    bDistributed.com, Inc.
    Phone: +1-847-372-3955
    Making Business Distributed
    Fax: +1-847-589-3738
    http://bdistributed.com/
    Personal Email: [email protected]



MTC-00027662

From: Paul Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has twice been found guilty of serious violations of 
the Sherman Antitrust Act, by a federal District Court and by the 
United States Court of Appeals. Any settlement of this case with the 
US Justice Department must not allow Microsoft to continue its 
monopoly practices. To do so would seriously dampen software 
innovation in the United States and threaten our global economic 
competitiveness.
    Paul H. Lewis
    Government Documents Librarian
    USC Aiken Library
    Aiken, SC 29801
    http://library.usca.sc.edu
    803-641-3320



MTC-00027663

From: Ed Lorenzen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:54am
Subject: ``antitrust''
    I use many Microsoft programs on my computer, and also many from 
other manufacturers. I resent this attempt by unsuccessful 
competitors to interfere with my selection of software. If their 
products are any good they would not resort to the under-handed 
tactics that they are using here. Please drop this unfair suit. I do 
not believe that the Department of Justice, or any court, is 
competent to determine how I will use my computer, and I resent this 
effort to control my personal property and actions.
    Microsoft has a fundamental right to its property, and the 
government's job is to protect this right, not take it away. Control 
of any business by the government is obscene, and has been 
repeatedly shown to be a failure, not in the public interest.
    Brar E Lorenzen
    Prescott Valley, AZ
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027664

From: Ledoux, David C
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I am firmly OPPOSED to your proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
anti-trust case. The settlement is far too weak and will not prevent 
Microsoft from continuing to leverage their ever-growing monopoly 
until they control ALL of the computing industry and all of the 
Internet. I am sickened that my government would allow that to 
happen. Microsoft has been found by the courts to be a MONOPOLY, 
which they built by engaging in illegal and immoral business 
practices, and they must be broken up and/or prevented from using 
that monopoly to further harm the free market system on which our 
nation depends for its prosperity.
    Microsoft has, in the past, wriggled out of consent decrees, and 
there is no reason to think that they will not be able to work 
around this extremely weak settlement. A 3-member oversight 
committee (with one member from Microsoft!) is worthless to enforce 
this, as well. For this settlement to be anything other than a slap 
on the wrist, Microsoft must be forced to publish ALL of their APIs, 
and be forbidden from any and all anti-competitive licensing 
practices, just for a start. Their contracts with OEMs must be 
published and monitored by the courts to prevent such things as 
their dual-boot restriction, which the current settlement does not 
even address!
    Finally, there should be language in the settlement by which 
Microsoft will be forced to publish ALL of the Windows source code 
if they do not comply 100% with the spirit and letter of the 
settlement.
    Thank you for allowing me to comment on this.
    Sincerely,
    David C. LeDoux
    Reston, VA



MTC-00027665

From: James E. Leinweber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:01 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Antitrust case as entirely inadequate and 
counterproductive, and not in the public interest.
    The likely effect of adopting it would be an maintenance of 
Microsofts current OS, Office suite, and Web browser monopolies, and 
their extension into new areas. This would give rise to the need for 
yet a third antitrust case a few years from now. I entirely agree 
with the criticisms and comments in the ``open letter'' 
submitted by Dan Kegel under the Tunney act (see , though I am submitting my own 
additional comments rather than co-signing his.
    I have worked in the computer industry for 30 years, including 
20 years experience with Unix systems and intensive deployment of 
Microsoft products since 1993. Though I have no legal training, I 
have followed the Antitrust case with interest, and have read the 
Findings of Fact, the Conclusions of Law, the appeals court ruling, 
and the proposed settlement. I found the facts entirely accurate, 
the conclusions persuasive. The appeals court ruling was slightly 
dissappointing, while the proposed settlement appalls me. and 
Microsoft's tactic with their first antitrust case, resulting in the 
consent decree, was to obey the letter of the agreement while 
completely violating its spirit. That is what led to the current 
antitrust case. The proposed settlement basically has Microsoft 
promising not to repeat several of the ploys which entrenched their 
current monopolies, while doing nothing to reduce those monopolies, 
and blatantly inviting them to extend their monopolies into new 
areas.
    Tactics Microsoft has used, which have affected me, and which 
are not addressed by the settlement include:
    * Deliberately introducing new API's and abandoning support for 
old ones, in order to provide a ``moving target'' too 
costly for competitors to be compatible with. This imposes extra 
costs on my organization to convert our own applications to work 
later versions of Microsofts own software. This has been 
particularly noticable in the mutation of the Visual Basic interface 
to Microsoft Office.
    * Similarly, use of new secret file formats in their office 
suite to prevent compatibility with competing products, even their 
own. When Office-97 was first introduced, it was incapable of 
writing Office-95 format documents. This tactic forced people to 
upgrade to new versions in order to be able to read documents from 
early adopters. My organization had to abandon the use of 
Wordperfect, which we prefered as a word processor, due to the 
difficulty of exchanging documents with organizations using 
Microsoft Word. Similarly, their ``embrace, extend, 
extinguish'' approach to Internet protocols. This tactic, of 
designing proprietary additions to widely used protocols is designed 
to capture control of technologies, which can in turn be used to 
extend their monopolies and further increase the application barrier 
to entry as cited in the findings of fact. It was quite notable with 
their implementation of Java--which they

[[Page 28094]]

lost a court case over. A more recent example is their introduction 
of proprietary extensions to Kerberos authentication protocols in 
Windows-2000. Existing Kerberos clients can authenticate with 
Microsoft servers, but Microsoft clients cannot usefully 
authenticate with non-Microsoft servers. They are currently 
extending this into their Passport service, in an apparent attempt 
to create a new monopoly in Internet authentication services. These 
abuses of their monopoly power to pervert interoperability has 
forced my organization to deploy more Microsoft servers than we 
would otherwise wish to.
    * Gratuitous incompatibilities with competing products. Note 
that Microsoft lost a private antitrust case with Caldera over this 


MTC-00027665--0002 involving Windows 3.1 and DR-DOS, 
though the terms of their out of court settlement are secret. In 
another example, when Microsoft introduced windows NT 4.0, they 
removed support for the IBM OS/2 ``HPFS'' filesystem, 
though the windows NT 3.51 drivers operated perfectly well under 
windows NT 4.0. Microsoft utilities deliberately reported HPFS file 
systems as ``damaged'', when they were not. The 
continuation of this and similar tactics forced my organization to 
stop using os/2 in any significant way.
    A particularly blatant and egregious example of this was during 
2001, when--while waiting for the appeals court to finish its 
antitrust ruling!--Microsoft (1) removed Sun-compatible Java 
from windows-XP (2) broke compability of Netscape browser plugins 
with Internet Explorer 5.5 via service pack 2, without even the 
excuse of a new browser internal architecture (3) broke 
compatibility with Apple Quicktime multimedia, which competes with 
Windows Media player. If that is their behavior while under court 
scrutiny, one can scarely imagine what they might do after the 
settlement.
    * raised prices on older OS's which had competition, such as DOS 
and Windows 3.1, above the price of newer OS's which did not yet 
have competition, such as Windows-95. In a competitive market they 
would not have been able to do that, and this abuse of their 
monopoly position was a deliberate tactic to rapidly move the 
installed base of systems toward an increased application barrier of 
entry. This contributed significantly to the extension of their OS 
monopoly into the office suite arena. It raised the cost of 
deploying PC's in my organization, as we opted not to deploy 
windows-95 to any significant degree.
    Having destroyed most of the commercial competition already, the 
next big threat to their monopoly position may be from open source 
projects such as Linux. The proposed settlement creates several new 
possible obstacles to the prospect of open source competition, as 
described in Dan Kegel's letter. The loophole that security-related 
protocols do not have to be disclosed is particularly glaring.
    This secrecy is a bad security practice--ask anyone at the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology who was involved the 
exemplary and open development of the Advanced Encryption Standard 
(AES or Rijndael) currently replacing the obsolete 1970's Data 
Encryption Standard (DES). In addition to being a bad security 
practice by a vendor whose monopoly position in the industry makes 
their security weaknesses a matter of national security interest, it 
is anticompetitive. Ask anyone on the team of the 
``Samba'' project which tries to provide file sharing and 
printing services on Unix systems compatible with Microsoft file and 
print sharing about the difficulties which Microsoft's changes in 
unpublished security protocols have created.
    * Deliberately dropping support for older software to force 
users to upgrade to newer software. For example, Microsoft is no 
longer providing security fixes for Internet Explorer 4.0, in the 
hope of forcing users onto later versions which are more 
incompatible with their competitors. This summer they will stop 
providing fixes for NT 4.0. My organization is still running IE 4.0 
on NT 4.0, but we will be forced to upgrade this year by this 
tactic. Furthermore, Microsoft next ploy seems to be attempting to 
use the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the antitrust settlement 
itself, and the California pricing case to extend its monopolies 
further and prevent competition from open source projects. 
Accordingly, I suggest that the proposed settlement be significant 
extended to include measures such as:
    a) Microsoft has to publish all API's and file formats in their 
final form 6 months before any product using them is first sold.
    b) All contract terms have to be published, and they may not 
sign exclusive contracts with one vendor whose terms are not 
available to other vendors.
    c) depositions and settlement details from other antitrust cases 
may not be held secret, in order to allow collaboration between the 
various victims of their monopoly.
    d) Microsoft cannot sue open source projects for infringement of 
patents or trade secrets. Copyright suits against open source 
projects would be limited to copying of code or documentation; they 
could not sue over API's nor programming languages.
    e) intellectual property such as patents must be licensed on 
equal and generous terms to all commercial firms.
    f) Microsoft may not sue anyone for violation of patents which 
affect Internet Standards adopted by the Internet Engineering Task 
Force (IETF).
    g) Microsoft may not raise prices on previous products faster 
than rate of inflation, nor price new versions below old versions
    h) Microsoft must provide security fixes for older versions of 
products for 7 years from the date of first retail sales.
    i) under ongoing court supervision, violation of these terms is 
punished by fines of 1 million dollars per day per product until the 
violation is remedied.
    I don't know if the antitrust laws permit it, but a fitting 
response to Microsofts abuse of monopoly power to crush competition 
and extort excess profits would be to impose a large fine, perhaps 
as high as 10 billion dollars, and then use it to finance open 
source projects under a BSD-style license. The results would be 
equally available for commercial or public use, or even by Microsoft 
itself. The public and government would benefit from the resulting 
freely available software, while commercial competitors of Microsoft 
who bid to provide it would benefit from the revenue, the base of 
code, and the experience of writing it.
    Sincerely,
    James E. Leinweber
    Information Systems Specialist
    Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene
    University of Wisconsin
    465 Henry Mall
    Madison WI 53706



MTC-00027666

From: Jack Reece
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If there has ever been any doubt that AOL does not want a fair 
and expedient solution to it's legal challenge to Microsoft, then 
it's latest legal action should remove a ``all'' doubt. 
The irony of all their actions is that there has never been a ground 
swell of consumer complaints stating that the consumer has been hurt 
by Microsoft business practices.
    It is obvious that AOL Time Warner is trying to use the courts 
for it's own competitive purposes. It is also time to challenge 
whether AOL is monopolistic in it's own business as the largest 
internet provider. If AOL should in fact buy the Linux operating 
system, I suppose we will see yet another challenge to Microsoft in 
the courts. For the sake of the technology industry, the nation's 
economy, and America's consumers, let's get these issues out of the 
courts and into the competetive marketplace where they should be.
    Jack D. Reece
    419 Chesterwoods Court
    High Point, NC 27262
    336-841-7810



MTC-00027667

From: Carl F. Brechler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As the Justice Department is in its final stages of deliberating 
on the proposed Microsoft settlement to decide whether to accept the 
settlement or to litigate it further. It is my position that the 
present proposed settlement be adopted since it offers a reasonable 
approach to the solution of the suit. It offers a compromise that 
will enhance the ability of all Americans to access the Internet and 
use innovative software products to make their computer experience 
easier and more enjoyable. Furthermore, it offers the potential of 
additional innovative products to enhance worker productivity.
    Sincerely,
    Carl F. Brechler
    3025 Red Wing Court
    Bettendorf, IA 52722



MTC-00027668

From: John Quirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:03am
Subject: Microsoft case
    Dear Dept. of Justice:I am most concerned about your decision to 
settle your pending suit with Microsoft. I strongly believe it will

[[Page 28095]]

not resolve the problem and may actually create additional problems 
down the road. With the Enron debacle hanging over our collective 
heads, this quick fix appears to be another possible blunder on 
government's part. Do take some time to really think this thing 
through and get some input from different sectors of the 
economy.Quite simply put, I am saying no to the Microsoft 
settlement.
    John Quirk
    14 Waterview Drive
    Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
    Telephone 518/ 226-0427



MTC-00027669

From: Satoshi Yajima
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 5:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm glad to post the comment on Microsoft Settlement.
    Thank you.
    * Internet Explorer really needed for customers In early 1990s, 
Microsoft Windows 3.x have ``File-manager'', file-managing 
utilities, although some of third vendors produced alternatives of 
File-manager. Because file-managing utilities such as File-manager 
was essential part of operating systems; customers could not do 
anthing without it.
    The same thing is true to IE, the Microsoft's browser. Now that 
the Internet is essential to our information society, operating 
systems couldn't work well without browsers. Microsoft has to 
develope browsers to make their operating system worth enough for 
customers
    * Micorsoft have no intention to monopolize the market, I think. 
Now they are promoting ``.NET Platform.'' This platform 
collaborates other platforms; they will not replace other platforms 
with their own operating system, Microsoft Windows. .NET Platform 
makes Microsoft Windows interconnect with other platforms throughout 
the Internet.
    Microsoft should grow up the computer technology with being free 
from any legal unreasonable restriction.
    * Large share of Windows is never a barrier to market's growth. 
Someone would say Microsoft Windows have large share of the Market 
and it causes other vendors to develope new operating systems. I 
would say, it is WRONG.
    Developing operating system is, originally, difficult to develop 
and cost too much. Even though there were many operating systems 
used now, it would be difficult to develop new OS. Large share of 
Microsoft Windows have no relations with the fact that other vendors 
couldn't develop new operating systems. Regards.
    Satoshi Yajima ([email protected])
    Tokyo, Japan.



MTC-00027670

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get on with the settlement process. There is no reason to 
prolong an investigation that has already been concluded.
    Microsoft is experiencing the same downturn in fortunes as any 
other software company and will forever be subject to the likes and 
dislikes of the marketplace without regard to size of company and 
its market share.
    Leave them alone!
    Let those with new ideas and processes innovate and 
create...marketplace advantage is available to anyone offering 
something better than the competition. And the ultimate judge of 
something better...the marketplace.
    Please, quickly and without fear, rule in favor of settlement.
    Thomas L. McEnaney
    Owner-Pres.
    The Star Alliance
    6285 Fieldstone Place
    Reno, NV 89523-1204
    775-787-0433



MTC-00027671

From: MACKERSIE, DAVID
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let the Microsoft settlement stand. I believe it is 
strongly in the public's best interest.
    Microsoft is an important driver for lowering the cost of 
technology. As a user of Microsoft products for the past 20 years, I 
have noticed that the company has consistently lowered the cost of 
technology for every market that it has entered. Just as the 
industrial revolution lowered the cost of textiles by mass 
production and economies of scale, so too does Microsoft lower the 
cost of software by mass production and economies of scale. The 
complaints against Microsoft are like the complaints of artisans and 
craftsmen who have been forced out of work. We feel sympathetic for 
their loss, but we know that economies of scale serve society best.
    Best Regards,
    David Mackersie
    Sr. Principal Software Engineer
    PRI Automation



MTC-00027672

From: Ezra Berch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As provided by the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case. I 
believe the settlement is not in the public interest and is harmful 
to consumers. It will allow Microsoft to continue to be an illegal 
monopoly.
    A few years ago, another antitrust case by the government 
against Microsoft was settled by means of a consent degree. That 
consent degree did almost nothing. As a result of its 
ineffectiveness, the current antitrust case was filed. This previous 
case shows that stronger penalties are needed to curb Microsoft's 
illegal behavior. The penalties proposed by the Settlement are not 
even close to being strong enough.
    One of the major penalties of the settlement is the limited 
disclosure of some Windows API's to competing companies. However, 
this provision, like other parts of the settlement, is full of 
loopholes. For example, Microsoft need not release this information 
to groups which do not meet certain criteria as a business (Section 
3(J)(2)(c)). However, some of the biggest threats to Microsoft, such 
as the Linux operating system and the Apache web server, would not 
be covered by this. Furthermore, Section 3(J)(1) allows Microsoft to 
not disclose information for security reasons. This loophole allows 
Microsoft to not disclose some information simply by classifying it 
as part of a ``anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, 
digital rights management, encryption or authentication 
system.''
    Finally, there is no real enforcement mechanism included in the 
settlement. Any company hurt by a major violation of the settlement 
by Microsoft would have to sue Microsoft if the government does not 
agree with its claim. Many smaller companies have nowhere near 
enough resources to sue a big company such as Microsoft. In 
addition, in the years it takes for the lawsuit and its appeals to 
be resolved, much damage will already have been done. In summary, I 
am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement between the
    United States and Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Ezra Berch
    11713 Stonington Place
    Silver Spring, MD 20902



MTC-00027673

From: Rep.Kreuser
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to urge your approval of the settlement of the U.S. 
v. Microsoft case. Microsoft has been a leader in innovative 
technology and has provided tremendous benefits for consumers. 
Prompt settlement of this case is in the best interest of consumers, 
our schools, and of our economy.
    Technology can be a very powerful teaching tool. To prepare 
today's students to be tomorrow's leaders we must take every step to 
ensure that the technology is available to every student. A 
settlement such as this could assist less fortunate school districts 
in obtaining the technology necessary for quality education. Over 
$30 million in taxpayer money has been spent on this case. It is now 
time to put this matter behind us and move forward.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Kreuser, Assistant Assembly Democratic Leader
    State Representative
    64th Assembly District



MTC-00027674

From: Jim Holron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 28096]]

    The settlement allows Microsoft to strengthen the hardware 
barrier to entry. Specifically, in section III, paragraph A, section 
1, the restriction applies only to middleware. This restriction 
should also apply to device drivers and applications.
    It appears that Microsoft is currently working to keep hardware 
manufacturers (video card manufacturers, sound card manufacturers, 
etc) from supporting non-Microsoft operating systems. Unless the 
settlement is rewritten to stop this behavior, Microsoft will be 
able to strangle hardware support for non-Microsoft operating 
systems. Unless all APIs are made public, Microsoft will be able to 
deliberately sabotage non-Microsoft products. Since all application 
software depends on the operating system, Microsoft can implement 
two versions of an API, a secret one that works correctly, and a 
public one that contains bugs. Indeed, through six weeks of reverse 
engineering, my employer has found exactly this situation! All APIs 
should be published and made available to the public, including open 
source developers who can not abide by non-disclosure agreements or 
pay royalties (such as The GIMP, and the Apache web server, both of 
which run on top of Windows).
    Microsoft's current monopoly position depends on a complex web 
of secret standards. By using proprietary, non-published standards, 
Microsoft traps its customers. All communication and storage 
standards should be published and freely available to the public. 
Anyone, including open source developers, should be able to develop 
products compatible with the De facto standard. Proprietary security 
standards endanger Internet security and hamper development of new 
technologies. The entire security community understands that 
unpublished standards are a security hole waiting to happen. The 
world's most rigorous security standards are published and 
scrutinized by security experts throughout the world. If a security 
hole exists, public scrutiny will discover it before a malicious 
intruder can exploit it.
    If Microsoft security standards remain secret, malicious 
intruders will reverse engineer the code, find the security holes, 
and exploit them before Microsoft can discover and fix the holes. 
This reality has played out over the past several years as worms and 
virii plagued the Internet. Microsoft should not only publish all 
security standards, they should publish the standards a full year 
before deploying them, thus giving the public time to discover 
security holes before they can be exploited.
    Microsoft recently proclaimed that they will focus on 
``trustworthy computing''. In response to this notice, 
some of the world's leading computer security experts have outlined 
policies that Microsoft should take to improve security. One of 
those recommendations was to publish all security standards before 
deploying them. This settlement specifically allows Microsoft to 
flaunt that expert advice in an apparent misunderstanding of 
computer security.
    Over the past several years, Microsoft has used its monopoly 
position to crush competing products. They essentially wiped out OS/
2 and BeOS (both competing operating systems), Lotus Office Suite 
(still exists, but nobody wants it because it doesn't support 
Microsoft Office documents), and HP OpenMail (which threatened 
Microsoft's customer lock-in strategy).
    To counter Microsoft monopolistic practices, the industry has 
responded by developing open source software. Open source software 
is developed by volunteers throughout the world. All of the source 
code is available to anybody who wants it. People may freely 
contribute to the code, and freely distribute the code. The open 
source community has become Microsoft's new prime target for 
destruction. Since open source software is not controlled by any one 
company, Microsoft can not buy it or drive it into bankruptcy.
    In a leaked memo (which Microsoft admits to writing), Microsoft 
outlines their plans to attack the open source community. Their plan 
is to take existing open standards, make trivial modifications so 
that they are no longer compatible, and deploy those modified 
standards.
    Furthermore, Microsoft plans to patent their changes so that no 
one can develop a compatible product. This settlement makes 
provisions for for-profit closed source companies to access 
Microsoft's proprietary standards, and to license the necessary 
patents to implement those standards. If this settlement goes 
forward, it will not only be difficult, but also illegal for open 
source developers to create software which can inter operate with 
the De facto standard. The open source community has made tremendous 
contributions to society. Their work is valued in the billions of 
dollars. Dozens of companies in the United States alone, base their 
business on developing open source software. This settlement will 
allow Microsoft to crush those companies, and hinder development of 
future open source projects.
    Any adequate settlement will guarantee that any software, 
including open source software, will be able to inter operate with 
Microsoft software.



MTC-00027675

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Solution
    I disagree with the proposed solution to Microsoft's antitrust 
case.
    Allen R. PRice
    219 S. Livingston
    Whitehall, MI 49461



MTC-00027676

From: Harms, Marilyn
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not see how breaking up a company, that does great work, 
will help anyone. I believe good competition is the answer and that 
only makes the playing field level for all players.
    I think if the company could make it's products more 
interchangeable with other computers, they would still come out the 
winners, but let the other companies attempt to compete on the same 
playing field.
    We need more competition, not laws to limit peoples initiatives 
and work and excel in their particular field. How would we be where 
we are without this great incentive to be the best.
    Marilyn Harms, B.S., PA-C
    Clinical Coordinator
    USDSM PA Studies Program
    Vermillion, SD 57069
    605-677-6568
    Fax 605-677-6569



MTC-00027677

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please see the attached as my views on this matter. I am 
involved in the commerce of the technology sector in the RTP. THank 
you for your attention.
    (See attached file'' 
USAGDavidson--Carolyn--1006--0121.doc)
Carolyn Davidson
January 22, 2002
46 Kimberly Drive, Durham, NC 27707
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The purpose of this letter is to voice my support for the 
settlement that was reached between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft. Since the beginning of this case, three years ago, the 
Department of Justice has spent an enormous amount of time and money 
pursuing the anti-trust dispute. While I certainly speculate the 
merits of this case, I was pleased to finally see the end of this 
dispute. I believe it is in the best interests of everyone involved 
that the matter be resolved. Given the current state of the economy, 
resolution of this case would naturally spur economic recovery in 
the technology markets, which is important here in the Research 
Triangle.
    The terms of the agreement represent compromise on the behalf of 
Microsoft. The stipulations of the settlement call for the licensing 
of Microsoft at a uniform rate to the largest twenty PC 
manufacturers. In addition to this, Microsoft is also willing to 
disclose the protocols of the Windows design system, allowing for 
the design of software that is increasingly compatible with Windows.
    It is my opinion that the settlement should be enacted at the 
end of January. I certainly believe that the time has come for 
resolution. Resolution in this matter is altogether beneficial. 
Thank you for your time regarding this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Carolyn Davidson



MTC-00027678

From: Lisa Munsat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Dept. of Justice
Washington, DC
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am very concerned about the proposed Microsoft settlement 
because I do not believe

[[Page 28097]]

that it is in the public interest. We, the consumers, need 
competition and choice so that we can decide for ourselves what 
products we want on our computers, and we need to be able to combine 
non-Microsoft products with Microsoft products on our computers. 
Also, the current proposed settlement leaves too many loopholes for 
Microsoft to exempt itself from crucial provisions. Thirdly, the 
court must hold public proceedings under the Tunney Act so that 
citizens, consumer groups, customers, and Microsoft's competitors 
can equally participate.
    Thank you for considering my comments and input.
    Sincerely,
    Elizabeth M. Munsat
    1505 Lamont Court
    Chapel Hill, NC 27517
    (919) 929-7282



MTC-00027679

From: Chriss Winston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear General Ashcroft,
    I am both a consumer of Microsoft products and a small 
stockholder. I have seen the money my husband and I set aside for 
our son's college education cut in half since the federal 
government, under the last Administration, undertook what I believe 
was a vendetta against a great company. Now, you have a chance to 
right a wrong. As a consumer, I am very happy with both the quality 
and price of Microsoft's products. I have seen no indications 
whatsoever of price gouging. To the contrary, over the years, 
Microsoft's products have become less expensive not more while 
offering the consumer increasingly improved technology. There has 
been no harm to the consumer period. As far as I'm concerned, the 
entire case should be thrown out, but at a minimum, you should 
settle it and let the tech sector recover from the near fatal attack 
by the Clinton administration. If anyone is to blame for the fall of 
tech stocks over the past 18 months, it is Al Gore and Bill Clinton, 
and the sorry mess began with their ill-advised, politically-
motivated Microsoft anti-trust suit. Please right this wrong and 
settle with Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Chriss Winston
    P.O. Box 129
    Pomfret, MD 20675



MTC-00027680

From: Dan Tepper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi!
    I just wanted to take a few moments to comment on the proposed 
settlement to the Microsoft Anti-Trust case. The proposed settlement 
is not sever enough, there is no real punishment for Microsoft 
included in the settlement, it does nothing to ensure that Microsoft 
does not continue to abuse their monopoly. Microsoft obviously feels 
the same way, as shown by their recent attempt to expand their 
monopoly into the education market (one of the few markets they do 
not have a monopoly in).
    Please do not approve this settlement..
    Thanks,
    Dan Tepper
    Concerned Citizen



MTC-00027681

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The actions of Microsoft Corporation and their agents 
demonstrate that they willingly and illegally leverage their 
influence to damage and even ruin competitors. This is bad not only 
for the consumer, but incredibly unfair to the people (and their 
families) that put forth an honest effort to bring something to the 
market place, believing that they would compete on a level playing 
field. Justice cannot be served to these individuals and companies. 
But to those who would place their efforts at risk in the future, 
they must believe that the fruits of their endeavors will not be 
wrestled away by a stronger entity.
    In this society, we are dependent on the judicial process to 
punish such offenders, at least to the minimum degree, such that it 
is a real deterrent to like or repeat offenses.
    It is my belief that the current settlement proposal cannot 
possibly accomplish this goal.
    Sincerely,
    Charles E. Hohn
    Software Engineer
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027682

From: Tony Smolar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing against the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
case because I do not believe that it is strong enough. I believe 
that a strong an effective penalty is needed against Microsoft 
because their past behavior has shown that they will sidestep weak 
government action, and continue to use whatever tactics are 
necessary to maintain their current monopolies and pursue new ones
    Thank You,
    Tony Smolar



MTC-00027683

From: Steward, Ronald Ray (UIS Student)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    I am writing regarding the Microsoft Antitrust case. I am a 
graduate student in computer Science at the University of Illinois 
at Springfield. For many years I have watched the developments in 
the computer industry. I have been greatly disheartened



MTC-00027684

From: L. Charles Andersen, Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a United States Citizen and tax-payer I want to make my 
opinion heard regarding the Microsoft Settlement. I believe the 
original lawsuit was politically motivated and clearly not in the 
interest of the American economy or anybody beyond Microsoft's 
competitors. The proposed settlement is reasonably fair and should 
move forward as quickly as possible. Delaying the settlement will 
only prolong the problems with the economy we are currently 
experiencing and hurt Microsoft and the IT industry even more.
    Thank you,
    L. Charles Andersen
    Caledonia, Wisconsin 53108



MTC-00027685

From: Jacques Guenette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:17am
Subject: Settlement
    To whomever it may concern :
    Let's settle this and move on. We all have better things to do, 
and we can all benefit from Microsoft focusing on business, not 
legaleze. Jacques Guï¿½ nette
    President
    DLGL LTD
    Jacques (Jag) Guï¿½ nette
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    tel. 450-979-4646
    fax 450-979-4650
    cel. 514-942-1267



MTC-00027686

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:25am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to express my support for the settlement that was 
reached in early November in the Microsoft antitrust dispute. It is 
my opinion that this suit has only wasted America's time and 
money since its inception three years ago. Any further litigation 
needs to be halted and this settlement accepted as a fair conclusion 
to a frivolous suit. The American economy has gone into decline; I 
believe that the stock market crash we experienced two years ago was 
in part a direct result of this suit. We will not see the end of 
this current recession until Microsoft and American business in 
general can operate without the interference of the government.
    A politically biased White House I believe, instituted this 
suit. It was a significant factor in my voting Republican in the 
last election. I agree with this settlement only because it puts a 
stop to this frivolous litigation, in a perfect world this suit 
would be dismissed. Thank you for your time and for the effort that 
you and your colleagues have put into seeing this suit come to an 
end. It has cost American citizens millions of lost dollars in 
personal and retirement savings due to the damage to Microsoft share 
prices.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 28098]]

    John Kennedy
    520 Charleen Lane
    Knoxville, TN 37920



MTC-00027687

From: ParisiHC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
** Confidential **
W204 N9187 Lannon Road
Menomonee Falls, WI 53051
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion regarding the legal dispute 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I feel that the 
settlement reached between the two is fair, and this matter should 
end quickly. The agreement is fair because it requires significant 
changes in Microsoft's future business dealings. To give you one 
example, Microsoft consented to license its Windows products to 
large computer makers at the same rate and on equivalent terms and 
conditions.
    In summary, the Microsoft case has reached a fair settlement. 
Future government intervention will only hamper business as a whole. 
Please conclude this case, and allow Microsoft to develop now so 
that it can improve the nation's economy.
    Sincerely,
    Henry C. Parisi
    Henry Parisi
    cc: Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
    HC Parisi
    W204 N9187 Lannon Road
    Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin 53051
    Home: 262 251-1539
    Mobil: 414 416-2107
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00027688

From: Vincent Caputo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2801 Deer Street
Mohegan Lake, NY 10547
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This is to give my approval to the agreement reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. This was reached after 
three long years of litigation, costing both parties enormous 
amounts of money. It is time to end this debate and move forward. 
Microsoft has also evidently been chastened and has agreed to any 
number of demands from the Department of Justice. There will be a 
technical committee to monitor future adherence; Microsoft has 
agreed to allow computer makers to ship non-Microsoft product to 
customers; Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows 
providing a mechanism to make it easier to promote non-Microsoft 
software; Microsoft would help companies better achieve a greater 
degree of reliability with regard to their networking software. 
Microsoft has done a great deal to pay for any ``sins'' it 
may have made.
    Please give your support to this agreement. It is time to move 
on. We have more important things to worry about.
    Sincerely,
    Vincent Caputo



MTC-00027689

From: 
[email protected]@
inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My opinion is that all of Microsoft (MS) competitors are out to 
increase their market share of comparable products. Wheteher their 
product is superior or infurior. Those states most likely have 
financial(in the form of hometown jobs or other state benefits) or 
re-election agenda's or both.
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00027690

From: Anna Quirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it's disgraceful that Microsoft should settle out of 
this case with such little consequence for their business practices. 
I thought this was an anti-trust case. How does this settlement 
settle the issue of anti-trust? I find it completely unacceptable.
    Anna Quirk
    Hinesburg, VT



MTC-00027691

From: Gerald McClain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Enough is enough!!!!! Let's get on with starting our economic 
engine again. Microsoft products have made our workplace a better 
work place. We need the inventive create ideas that drive a great 
economy. The savings in our factories and business offices has been 
tremendous!! Wake up, don't kill our economy again. While the terms 
of the settlement are tough, I believe they are reasonable and fair 
to all parties, and meet--or go beyond -- the ruling by 
the Court of Appeals, and represent the best opportunity for 
Microsoft and the industry to move forward.
    Please give us in industry a break and let our economy get going 
again. I teach teachers, professors, and trainers from industry and 
government how to train at a distance using two way video, web based 
instruction and virtual courseware. We have gone so far, yet have so 
far to go to achieve the dreams of students and facility to distance 
learning. We need the creative talent of Microsoft working at the 
forefront driving our economic engine.
    Please give us a break and settle the Microsoft suites.
    Gerald R. McClain
    Vice President Internet and Multimedia
    Teletraining Institute
    1524 W. Admiral
    Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074
    Telephone: 405-743-3463
    Email:  
[email protected]
    URL:  http://www.teletrain.com 
Retired Professor and head of Mechanical Design and Manufacturing 
Engineering Technology, Oklahoma State University



MTC-00027692

From: Mark Hofmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the current settlement that has been placed on 
Microsoft. I feel that the judgment does not go far enough to 
address the issues that the investigation of Microsoft has 
uncovered. While there are some parts of the settlement that will 
keep Microsoft from committing these same illegal acts in the 
future, there has been nothing put into this settlement that ?rights 
the wrongs? of the past. We do not allow criminals in this country 
to get away with murder if they say they will not do it again.
    Microsoft should not have this privilege, either. This is also 
not a guarantee of the future, either. Consider the 1995 consent 
decree levied on Microsoft. They paid almost no heed to the courts 
then, and if the past is any indication of the future, then it is 
likely that Microsoft will not fully comply with this settlement, 
either. There needs to be just punishment and enforcement.
    I thank you for all of the hard work that you do for the good of 
the country and appreciate your hard work.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Hofmann
    22 Green Woods Lane
    Unionville, CT 06085



MTC-00027693

From: Jim Kull
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do something about Microsoft. They have nearly eliminated 
all competition. They stole windows from Apple and are currently 
destroying Netscape. Please help.
    Thanks,
    Jim



MTC-00027694

From: Lin Tuschong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    United States Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530-0001 
Madam, I am writing about the current Microsoft suit upon which 
decisions are about to be made. Current proposed settlement issues 
will allow Microsoft to continue to extend its monopoly, and, 
potentially to gain a major stake in the control of the internet. It 
will also provide the company with opportunities to set aside 
crucial provisions of the settlement. The settlement will not allow 
consumers to run paid-for Microsoft

[[Page 28099]]

applications on other operating systems. If a customer purchases a 
product, it should be their decision upon which operating system it 
will run.
    Consumers who are spending their hard-earned cash have a right 
to choose what products they wish to install on their computer 
systems, rather than having Microsoft make their decisions. This has 
the potential to continue to injure other players in the computer 
field, many of whom offer good quality product that currently has 
difficulty competing with Microsoft. In the spirit of free 
enterprise, and to uphold the standards against monopolies, the 
settlement issue need to be reconsidered and other choices must be 
made.
    Thank you for your time.
    Lin Tuschong
    6821 NW 30th Ave.
    Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
    954-975-2703



MTC-00027695

From: Gary L. Breeden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs, I would like to voice my opinion regarding the case 
the Justice Department is involved with regarding Microsoft 
Corporation. Herein my comments: Unfortunately DOJ and US Courts 
actions against Microsoft appear to be driven more by Competitors 
than CONSUMERS! I have over twenty five years of experience in 
computer and information systems development for both fortune 1 
companies and small businesses and have ``grown up'' with 
almost every type of computer system imaginable.
    I have seen everything form the ``big blue hand of 
IBM'' as it strangled creativity with its structured products 
to the free handed ``scare tactics'' of the UNIX crowd 
(e.g., SUN, Corel, AOL/Time Warner, AT&T (a hideous monopolist 
even today)) who shout wondrous promises of ``open 
systems'' that to this day are so closed that very few 
applications run consistently between/among the myriad of UNIX and 
LINUX variants. For the most part, the UNIX/LINUX crowd is still 
playing the same old games ... point fingers and shouts negatives 
about anyone in their gang who proposes a standard that is not in 
tune with their individual biases. As a result, the world has a 
UNIX/LINUX platform that is so fragmented that the proponents aren't 
quite certain how to ``pull it together''. And they are 
not listening to CONSUMERS as we vote by buying the products we 
want! MICROSOFT! Creative, interactive, integrated products that 
work as expected when needed without a gaggle of technocrats to keep 
it running.
    Let's give credit to a great AMERICAN effort ..... Bill Gates 
and Microsoft .... they pulled together products that are 
overwhelmingly major customer successes. They created innovative 
products that deliver innovative solutions to day-to-day business as 
well as household solutions! WE AS CONSUMERS KEEP BUYING THEM 
BECAUSE WE WANT THEM! DOJ apparently believes American Consumers are 
not intelligent enough to make rational decisions. What happened to 
``majority opinion''? If we don't believe a product adds 
value to our wealth and lives, we WILL NOT BUY IT! Let the market do 
its thing! Keep government out of the free market. If Microsoft's 
competitors create better products, American Consumers will buy 
them. Microsoft has brought consistency through innovation and 
creativity to an industry that historically has been overwhelmingly 
structured and pragmatic at the expense of the every day consumer. I 
remember when IBM's operating systems for PCs cost over $500 
dollars! Sun Microsystems OS's cost into the thousands of dollars to 
run their microcomputers. American Consumer's are getting a feature 
laden, innovative products (Windows OS & Windows Office) at 
unbelievably low prices. Microsoft has in total brought computing 
machines into consumer's homes at prices that are affordable! IBM, 
SUN, etc. would be thriving if they modeled their product offerings 
after Microsoft (creative and innovative consumer oriented/driven). 
Microsoft listens
    .....If their competitors did, they would enjoy the spoils of 
success The campaign being waged by the trustbusters lawyers at DOJ 
and our Courts opens the door to a multitude of private lawsuits 
This litigation could end up looking a lot like the tobacco 
industry, with a lot of lawyer time (and FEES) and a big legal 
process for Microsoft and the computer industry to manage. Almost 
before the ink was dry on the judge's ``finding of fact'' 
lawyers began generating fees by filing class-action suits against 
Microsoft. Nearly 290 cases are currently pending in 32 states and 
the District of Columbia. The Justice Department thus spent 40 
million+ dollars in TAXPAYER FUNDS to prosecute a case that wiped 
out at least $80 billion in privately owned assets of TAXPAYERS and 
could ultimately obliterate much more. In spite of the warning 
signs, former Netscape CEO Jim Barksdale (a Microsoft Competitor) 
continues to peddle the notion that a government-ordered break-up of 
Microsoft ``is the simplest solution.''
    In reality, the simplest solution is to let the free market work 
rather than allow government lawyers apply nineteenth-century 
statutes to the twenty-first century economy. Lawyers making money 
for lawyers .... what a conflict of interest! All credible studies 
I've read regarding consumer opinions regarding DOJ vs. Microsoft 
have OVERWHELMINGLY been in favor for letting the free market work 
and keeping the government (especially the DOJ with its 19th century 
mentality) out of it. Listen to the consumers and not competitors! 
American Consumers are taxpayers! Give us a break! Clearly these 
cases are motivated by special interests and not consumer opinion! 
The DOJ experts for the most part are Microsoft competitors whose 
products have not competed based on quality, interoperability, and 
usefulness with Microsoft's products. Apparently they collectively 
``hired'' the DOJ to do their dirty work for them! America 
was built on the concept of free market and competition with very 
limited government intrusion. America's innovation and creativity 
has been a bi-product of this approach. Now we reward companies 
(e.g., Microsoft) who have been creative and innovative by 
permitting their competitors via the DOJ to blast this great 
American approach.
    Get real DOJ .... join the twentieth century! Listen to the 
consumer! We vote with our buying dollars! The DO J, US Courts, and 
our government must come to grips with the fact that successful 
American businesses should not be subject to the political whims of 
anti-capitalist apparatchiks, greedy lawyers, and publicity-hungry 
politicians who have little understanding of the high-tech economy. 
Bill Gates created a company worth half-a-trillion dollars, a 
company now co-owned by tens of millions of Americans (TAXPAYERS!). 
He created wealth. The would-be regulators can only destroy wealth. 
In the case of Microsoft, so far they have wiped out at least $80 
billion (and the number is growing). Destroying wealth is not 
creating wealth. Even Microsoft competitors that ``stand to 
benefit'' from the case, including Sun Microsystems, AOL (which 
owns Netscape), IBM, and RealNetworks all experienced significant 
declines in share prices as a result of their actions in this 
regard.
    I guess the competitors who sponsored this D0J trustbuster event 
are reapin9 their rewards now, If they can compete with products of 
equal or better quality with Microsoft, consumers will buy their 
products! That's what free markets ensure. Drop the ego trip DOJ and 
get out of the case and let the free market work! We are not a 
socialistic economy!
    The money DOJ has spent on this case could have been better 
spent fighting the real monopolist .... oil companies, mass media, 
medical companies (doctors, drug companies, providers), auto 
companies, insurance companies, utilities (especially the government 
ones like TVA), and the idiotic, egotistical government agencies 
that refuse to move into the 20th century and act normal. What's 
next, will the DOJ storm the offices of Microsoft armed with semi-
automatic arms and carry away Bill Gates and hold him in some 
government facility or compound (AT TAXPAYERS EXPENSE) until the DOJ 
completes stroking its ego?
    LISTEN TO THE CONSUMERS DOJI WE AREN'T AS STUPID AS YOU IMPLY WE 
ARE.
    IF WE DON'T LIKE A PRODUCT, WE WILL STOP BUYING IT IRRESPECTIVE 
OF THE MARKETING AGREEMENTS MANUFACTURERS AND VENDORS MIGHT HAVE.
    AMERICAN CONSUMERS ARE NOT DUMB! WE DON'T NEED HAND HOLDING; WE 
ARE MATURE ENOUGH TO MAKE COMPETENT DECISIONS!
    Apparently the DOJ needs to observe and learn from AMERICAN 
CONSUMERS ! I do NOT feel that consumers have been harmed by 
Microsoft; in fact, I firmly believe the economy, consumers, 
government, and taxpayers owe Microsoft and Bill Gates a warm 
hearted ``Thank you'' for the American wealth they 
created.
    Microsoft's products are very consumer oriented and deliver 
functionality that consumers are and have demanded. Admit it DOJ. 
You made a mistake. Or are you free to admit it?

[[Page 28100]]

    Gary Breeden
    [email protected]
    http://www.isabiz.com
    865-719-3561
    IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information in this e-mail and any 
attachments is intended only for the use of the individual or entity 
to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or 
the agent or employee responsible to deliver it to the intended 
recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, and 
destroy this e-mail message along with any attachments. Thank you.



MTC-00027696

From: Damon Merrill Cann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a Ph.D. student in Political Science at the State 
University of New York at Stony Brook. I object to the proposed 
settlement. Microsoft has become too large to provide any of its 
services well. Their practice of bundling software products 
deceptively traps the average consumer into using inferior products. 
It prevents competitors from entering the market. Reducing barriers 
to entry is critical to a competitive economy.
    I further object to the practice of creating intentional 
incompatibilities in Microsoft products that prevent them from 
running on other operating systems. The proposed settlement would 
not remedy this problem.
    As a catch all, I agree with the criticisms leveled at the 
porposed settlement which are published on-line at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html Please reconsider the settlement,
    Sincerely,
    Damon Cann
    Ph.D. Student
    SUNY at Stony Brook
    37 Soundview Dr.
    Port Jefferson, NY 11777



MTC-00027697

From: Strawn, Natalie M.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 120
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse: I am writing in full support of the proposed 
settlement agreement with Microsoft that would provide technology 
funds, computers, and software in low-income communities.
    As a future educator, I know that the state of Wisconsin would 
benefit from the technology funds.
    Technology enhances what is taught in the classroom and students 
take away not only knowledge of the content area, but it also allows 
the students to become technology savvy. Being technology literate 
is not a privilege, but a need in today's world. Due to the lack of 
funding in school districts in the state of Wisconsin, some schools 
aren't getting the same advantages as other schools. With the 
proposed settlement, students would get the technology they so 
greatly need.
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a great opportunity for the 
schools, teachers, and students of Wisconsin. The settlement would 
help us make sure that no student, in the area of technology, is 
left behind.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Natalie Strawn
    UW- Eau Claire Student
    321 4th Avenue
    Eau Claire, WI 54703



MTC-00027698

From: Ken Seikel
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/28/02 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Microsoft Settlement
    I am a U. S. citizen with 28 years experience developing 
software for computers. I wish to express my concern that the 
proposed settlement agreement is inadequate remedy, in light of the 
considerable public harm.
    A pattern of Microsoft behavior is evident, (including the 
disregard for the 1995 consent decree), suggesting that unless an 
effective remedy is enacted at this time, the public will continue 
to suffer from the lack of competition and we will again be 
searching for remedy in some future litigation of an even more 
complicated nature.
    The proposed settlement will be an ineffective remedy. It 
appears likely to provide a roadmap for future behavior which would 
exploit the loopholes, further harming the public. In effect, it 
grants Microsoft rights which would not otherwise exist. By allowing 
Microsoft the power to define the terms, it may actually foster 
anticompetitive behavior. By focusing on commercial competition, it 
ignores or even hinders open source software, one of the most viable 
alternatives to Microsoft software. I believe that an effective 
remedy must educate and inform the public, promote competition and 
prevent further abuse of monopoly power. The following comments may 
be helpful in achieving that result.
    Restrictive licensing terms prevent public disclosure of 
Microsoft product performance characteristics. Even freedom of 
speech is under attack from Microsoft. Provisions in the license for 
their web site creation tool prohibit anti-Microsoft statements. 
Microsoft must make public service announcements, acknowledging 
their violations of antitrust law, and the harm caused to the 
public. Complete disclosure is required. They recently attempted to 
hide information from the public by barring the media and the public 
from upcoming depositions Additionally, Microsoft did not fully 
disclose congressional lobbying or contact with members of the 
current administration as is required by the Tunney Act.
    Federal regulations have provided for educational information to 
the public in many product areas. Product labeling provides food 
product ingredients, automobile fuel efficiency, appliance energy 
consumption, tobacco and alcohol health considerations. Imposition 
of labeling requirements for PCs will similarly benefit the public.
    When the IBM PC was introduced in 1981, operating system 
software was not bundled into the system price. IBM offered several 
operating systems for the PC. The public chose the lower cost 
solution, which was IBM's version of Microsoft DOS. The public 
deserves choice today, but it is effectively denied by the bundling 
policies of the Microsoft OEMs.
    For any computer system offered with Microsoft software, OEMs 
must make that same system as readily available without the 
Microsoft software. The price difference must reflect the actual 
costs associated with providing the Microsoft software, support and 
warrantee services. A refund based model is not adequate. The costs 
must be fully disclosed on the product labeling and Microsoft must 
not financially benefit from the sale of a system without Microsoft 
software.
    Uniform pricing for Microsoft products should be via a single, 
published, public volume discount schedule. Pricing must not be 
influenced by any other consideration. The software resulting from 
Microsoft's claimed ``freedom to innovate'' should be 
offered as separate products, not bundled into Windows. 
``Freedom to innovate'' should not imply ``freedom to 
integrate''.
    Microsoft must be prevented from practicing their 
``Embrace, Extend, Extinguish'' tactics to wrest control 
of standards to their benefit. Their dot.net plans are an attempt to 
extend the monopoly to the internet itself. Microsoft must be 
prevented from using their current monopoly power to extend it into 
new areas. New versions of Microsoft products as well as new 
Microsoft products must, as the installation default, compatibly 
interoperate with prior versions of Microsoft products and other 
non-Microsoft software programs. Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth W. Seikel
    1226 Eastwood Circle S. E.
    North Canton, OH 44720
    Take care... Ken Seikel [email protected]



MTC-00027699

From: Robert Browner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:39am
    To Whom It May Concern: I have followed this litigation since it 
inseption. I belelive it was politically inspired and used as an 
escape from other problems. I also believe that if it went to the 
Supreme Court it would be ruled in favor of Microsoft. However, 
under the current situation both Microsoft, the government, and the 
several states agreed upon this settlement. I belelive it should be 
accepted as is and let all parties go on with more important and 
revelant business.
    Robert Browner



MTC-00027700

From: Eric Wadsworth
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 28101]]

Date: 1/28/02 9:41am
Subject: USAGWadsworth--Eric--1004--0126.doc
    5005 Timber Edge Drive
    Richfield, OH 44286
    January 27, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am glad that the Tunney Act allows me to participate in some 
small way in showing my support for Microsoft in the settlement of 
the antitrust case. Microsoft has been a strong source of support 
for American prosperity of quite some time now. With the legal 
wrangles of this court action behind it,
    Microsoft should be able, I hope, to return to its business of 
providing innovations to increase efficiency for business and around 
the world.
    The settlement is, like all settlements ever, a compromise. In 
my opinion, Microsoft graciously conceded the most. All it got was 
to have the court action end with it still in one piece. In 
exchange, it conceded to give up its United State Constitutional 
protected copyright and patent interests. For example, Microsoft is 
documenting and disclosing to the other companies who make software 
the digital code to the various internal interfaces of its Windows 
operating system programs. Microsoft is in good company with great, 
bold, innovative technology companies like IBM and AT&T in being 
sued for antitrust.
    Thank you so much for having enough sense to work to end this 
mess with a settlement that is worth agreeing on. I appreciate your 
leadership.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Wadsworth



MTC-00027701

From: Hohn, Charles
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The actions of Microsoft Corporation and their agents 
demonstrate that they willingly and illegally leverage their 
influence to damage and even ruin competitors. This is bad not only 
for the consumer, but incredibly unfair to the people (and their 
families) that put forth an honest effort to bring something to the 
market place, believing that they would compete on a level playing 
field. Justice cannot be served to these individuals and companies. 
But to those who would place their efforts at risk in the future, 
they must believe that the fruits of their endeavors will not be 
wrestled away by a stronger entity.
    In this society, we are dependent on the judicial process to 
punish such offenders, at least to the minimum degree, such that it 
is a real deterrent to like or repeat offenses.
    It is my belief that the current settlement proposal cannot 
possibly accomplish this goal.
    Sincerely,
    Charles E. Hohn
    Software Engineer
    CC:Beattie, Chris,Wheaton, Ken,Antle, Deborah



MTC-00027702

From: Duff, Michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe this settlement is a BAD idea and very bad for the 
computing economy.
    Microsoft shouldn't be destroyed by punishment, but should also 
not be able to buy their way out of this.
    Michael P. Duff, Jr. 

    Director, divine Advanced Web Technology (Chicago)
    Work 312-601-3048 Cell 630-408-7538
    http//www.divine.com http//duff.dnsalias.com



MTC-00027703

From: Bagby, Jon W. (091)C(093)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor
    Fact 1: Microsoft Corporation has broken no laws.
    Fact 2: This frivolous lawsuit should never have been 
entertained by any court.
    Fact 3: I resent the government's belief that it has to force 
it's ``protection'' on me when I neither want nor need it.
    Toss this litigation out into the street where it belongs.
    Stop punishing businesses and individuals for their hard work 
and success. Stop allowing (empowering?) failed businesses to set 
the rules for the markets in which they couldn't compete in the 
first place.
    Thank you.
    Jon W. Bagby
    IT Professional
    CC:'activism(a)moraldefense.com''



MTC-00027704

From: Raymond Peeples
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    I am in favor of the settlement and urge it's adoption! Thank 
you!
    Raymond C. Peeples Jr.
    Service Repair Coordinator
    Stanley Elevator Co., Inc
    ``The time when you need to do something is when no one 
else is willing to do it, when people are saying it can't be 
done.'' Mary Frances Berry



MTC-00027705

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    End the lawsuits and let the market determine the best solution. 
AOL has nothing to complain about when it comes to unfair practices 
and monopolies.
    Mick Stoffel
    651-733-7932



MTC-00027706

From: Nicolas Ouedraogo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional working and interacting with 
Microsoft products for the past 10 years, I have numerous first-hand 
experiences of the ill-effects of Microsoft's abuses of monopoly 
powers and predatory business practices on my daily work. Although 
living and working abroad, these abuses and practices have and still 
are affecting me personally and professionally, which shows how far-
reaching the ill-effects can be.
    After closely watching this case, including relevant documents 
of the trial and numerous commentaries in the press, I believe that 
the proposed settlement will not achieve its goals and, as an 
american citizen, I feel compelled to express my concerns about it. 
Microsoft's past and present behaviours have already been described 
at length during the trial, but the ones which have affected me the 
most can be summed up as:
    (A) illegally restricting competition in the OS market
    (B) illegally using its monopoly position in the OS market to 
enter other markets or restrict competition in other markets 
However, the proposed settlement fails to correctly address those 
two points, and does so in various ways, notably:
    - Microsoft's past behaviours have showed how clever it can be 
in finding and exploiting loopholes in its agreements--the DOJ 
has a first-hand experience of this (cf. the 1995 consent decree 
with Microsoft). The proposed settlement is too vaguely worded in 
this respect, so careful attention should be given to the various 
means (and their wording) needed to acheive these goals.
    - Also of the highest importance, specific means should be 
provided to guarantee that open source and free software can develop 
unharmed by Microsoft's actions. By Microsoft's own admission, free 
software (and particularly the Linux OS) is its biggest competitor, 
but strangely the proposed settlement's wording of Microsoft's 
behavioural remedies specifically includes only commercial software 
developers--thus leaving free software developers, most of whom 
are individuals or not-for-profit entities, with no rights at all, 
as though they don't even exist.
    Even worse, Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language 
against not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that 
Microsoft need not describe nor license API, Documentation, or 
Communications Protocols affecting authentication and authorization 
to companies that don't meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: 
``...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business, ...''
    The same goes for Section III(D), which deals with disclosure of 
information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-Microsoft 
``middleware'', and which gives some rights to commercial 
concerns only. This is particularly unfair, because Microsoft's 
harms have and still are affecting not only businesses, but also the 
public at large, including individuals and not-for-profit 
organizations.
    So, in my view, any settlement should include, as a bare 
minimum, the following requirements:

[[Page 28102]]

    (A) To restore competition on the OS market, the proposed 
settlement should:
    1. Require Microsoft to:
    --publish OEM prices for licenses to all version of Windows 
and its successors.
    --offer different prices for the same product based only on 
quantity bought. The complete pricelist must be made public and 
access to the different prices cannot be tied to factors other than 
quantity.
    --publish the conditions under which it gives access to the 
source code of any of its OS, and provide such accesses in a non-
discriminatory way These mesures would provide a mean for consumers 
to make informed choices when selecting computer platforms to buy, 
prevent Microsoft from illegally using OEMs to raise the barrier to 
entry in the OS market, and prevent Microsoft from threatening ISVs 
to deny them access to the source code of its OS.
    2. Prevent Microsoft from:
    --refusing to sell licenses of its OS to anyone
    --entering in a bundling agreement or contract which 
includes a Microsoft OS, with OEMs or resellers
    --using a software-related patent to block or hinder the 
development and public offering (free of charge or for a cost) of a 
software competing with Microsoft's products. Microsoft should be 
required to license, free of charge and in a non-discriminatory way, 
any software-related patent it owns to any software developer, 
provided the software using the patent will also be publicly 
available free of charge. Commercial software using Microsoft-owned 
patents can be required to license these patents for a reasonnable 
cost, provided that that cost is published by Microsoft and equally 
applied in a non-discriminatory way to all commercial vendors.
    --publicly offering (free of charge or for a cost) any 
hardware device driver without also publicly offering, free of 
charge, its source code.
    --certifying any hardware as working with Microsoft 
software, unless the hardware's complete specifications are publicly 
available free of charge.
    These five measures combined would remove a big part of the 
barrier to entry illegally placed by Microsoft on competing products 
in the OS market, and prevent future actions by Microsoft to 
restrict competition, including those from open-source and free 
software products.
    This would also prevent Microsoft from using hardware devices as 
a mean to maintain its monopoly position:
    - by ensuring that any hardware supported natively by a 
Microsoft OS can also be supported by any other OS (including open 
source and free software operating systems like Linux)
    - by ensuring that Microsoft cannot use its ``seal of 
approval'' to reinforce its monopoly position by helping 
hardware manufacturers in marketing products for which the 
specifications are not publicly available.
    (B) To prevent Microsoft from using its OS monopoly as a way of 
achieving another monopoly position in another market, the proposed 
settlement should require Microsoft to:
    --publish, free of charge and without any non-disclosure 
requirement, complete documentation of all interfaces between 
software components, all communications protocols, and all file 
formats used in any software publicly offered (free of charge or for 
a cost) by Microsoft for the past three years, and those publicly 
offered (free of charge or for a cost) by Microsoft for the next ten 
years. These documentations for software publicly offered (free of 
charge or for a cost) by Microsoft for the past three years must be 
publicly available at most one year after the date the settlement is 
in effect.
    --publicly provide answers, free of charge and in a 
reasonable time, to all questions raised by anyone regarding any 
aspect of an interface (as distinguished from implementation 
techniques) that the published documentation fails to address, and 
do so for the next ten years.
    --make available in a convenient way, the ability to remove 
any software component that is part of a Microsoft OS (such as 
Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, etc..) and replace it with 
a competing software component.
    These three mesures combined would ensure that complete 
interoperability with Microsoft present and future products becomes 
possible, thus guaranteeing that fair competition can exist in all 
software markets in which Microsoft is present. They also address 
some of the past harms done by Microsoft by requiring it to use some 
of its ill-gotten gains to provide the public with some means to 
interoperate with some of its past, still widely in-use software.
    I sincerely hope that my concerns about the proposed settlement 
will be correctly be addressed, and I will watch very closely the 
outcome the case.
    Regards,
    Nicolas Ouedraogo
    C.T.O.
    Juillerat-Grin S.A
    17, rue de la Fontenette
    1227 Carouge
    Switzerland
    tel. : +41 (22) 827-3030
    fax: +41 (22) 827-3033
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00027707

From: Clayton Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:46am
Subject: Comments Regarding Microsoft Settlement
    I am convinced that the punitive measures laid out by the 
proposed Microsoft settlement are wholely inadequate and mostly 
ludicrous. I'm speaking mainly of the supposed $1 billion that will 
be invested in poor schools, but I'm also convinced that bulk of the 
rest of the settlement is little more than a slap on the wrist. In 
regards to the $1 billion to be invested in the public school 
system, I can't help but be flabergasted. While not myself a huge 
fan of Apple computers, I whole hearted agree with the comments that 
Steve Jobs made about the settlement. I believe that the most 
relevant of his points was that pouring money and computers loaded 
with Microsoft software into the school system would do nothing more 
than train entire generations of students to be future Microsoft 
customers, further guaranteeing Microsoft's stranglehold on the 
personal computing industry.
    Few would doubt that computers will play a larg part in our 
future. In light of this, you have the chance to affect (and 
benefit) our future profoundly by putting Microsoft in its place and 
removing from their hands the power that they currently hold over 
the computing industry.
    I trust that you will act in the best interest of the American 
people.
    Thank you.
    Clayton Carter
    Information Technology Specialist
    Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics



MTC-00027708

From: Fraser Smithson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please enter my letter attached in comment for Microsoft 
Settlement Public comment.
    Fraser Smithson
    Fraser D. Smithson
    2390 Tarpon Road
    Naples, FL 34102
    941-793-5155
    [email protected]
    January 31, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I believe the antitrust case against Microsoft should never have 
been brought.
    However, as it was actually brought three years ago, I believe 
that the settlement agreement is the best think for Microsoft, and 
for America. Continuing this wasteful litigation will not benefit 
any one.
    The settlement was not reached in haste. All parties had a 
chance to bring up their concerns and grievances and issues during 
three months of negotiations with the mediator appointed by the new 
federal judge on the case. Microsoft gets to stay intact. The 
companies behind the government antitrust action get Microsoft to 
abandon many of its legal rights. Copyrights and patents of 
intellectual property rights were protected by America's Founding 
Fathers in the United States Constitution over two hundred years 
ago. Microsoft has taken a strong stance to protect its intellectual 
property. After all, intellectual property, the collected, written 
down in software code, and tested mental power of its employees is 
practically the whole business worth of the software industry. I 
know that Bill Gates and his co-workers at Microsoft have faced 
difficult challenges in the past, since they were founded a little 
over twenty years ago. Under the settlement, Microsoft will be 
helping the entire computer industry, including the many leading 
companies that are American. That should be seen as in the best 
American interest.
    Thank you for your support of the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Fraser Smithson

[[Page 28103]]



MTC-00027709

From: Marty Altman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    CC: Marty Altman
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Sirs,
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I would very much like to add my 
voice to the objections over the proposed Microsoft Settlement. I 
won't belabor the details here, as folks like Dan Kegel (http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html) have done an outstanding job with 
these points. I strongly support his ``Open Letter to DOJ Re: 
Microsoft Settlement'' (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html).
    I believe the Proposed Final Judgement is critically flawed in 
several ways. Perhaps the most objectionable to me is that it 
doesn't require any fundamental shift in monopolistic attitudes or 
practices in order for Microsoft to successfully litigate their way 
to ``compliance''.
    Quoting from Dan Kegel's introduction:
    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. Clearly Microsoft has 
exercised monopolistic practices, and the Proposed Final Judgement 
provides little real relief for the software development, vendor, or 
end user communities. If nothing else, the definitions for key terms 
in the settlement are sufficiently narrow to allow Microsoft to 
employ a long standing tactic of litigating their way to what they 
feel is a successful end.
    Perhaps more subtle there don't seem to be any provisions in the 
settlement designed to alter, let alone provide substantive 
punishment for, Microsoft's history and culture of predatory 
attitudes. Deeply held attitudes will not change themselves- they 
require a catalyst. In my view, the Proposed Final Judgement has no 
sting.
    Quoting again from Dan Kegel's introduction:
    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).
    I respectfully disagree with Attorney General Ashcroft's 
assessment that the Proposed Final Judgement would, ``end 
Microsoft's unlawful conduct.'' In my view, the final judgement 
should include three principal aspects:
    - enough procedural remedy to affect a significant shift in 
Microsoft's monopolistic business practices,
    - enough sting to affect a significant shift in Microsoft's 
predatory business attitudes, and
    - enough compliance machinery to assure both these shifts take 
place.
    I agree with the conclusions stated elsewhere that the Proposed 
Final Judgement, in its current form, does little to affect 
Microsoft's monopolistic attitudes and practices, and is therefore 
not in the public interest. It should not be adopted without 
substantial revision.
    Thank you for your time,
    Marty Altman
    Senior Scientist
    Science Applications International Corporation
    Orlando, Florida
    -The opinions expressed herein are my own, and should in no way 
be interpreted as belonging to SAIC.



MTC-00027710

From: Phillips, George H.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I believe the Microsoft settlement to be completely inadequate. 
As an IT professional, I have been hobbled for years by inferior 
software forced upon me by the illegal practices of Microsoft. They 
need to be reigned in now! Thank you. These opinions are mine alone 
and not those of my employer.
    George Phillips
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00027712

From: 
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To: Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division, US Dept of Justice I 
would like to submit a comment on the Microsoft settlement proposal. 
I believe the settlement must include a very strong provision 
assuring inter-operability.
    I believe it is the responsibility of the U.S. Government to 
drive this process, as it will not happen without U.S. Government 
leadership. When railroads were first being built, there were no 
standards. Different rail lines were built with different guages. 
Each community had its own local time.
    There wasn't any such thing as a standard guage, or a standard 
time zone. It proved impossible to serve the public interest without 
governmentally enforced standardization.
    A standard track guage was agreed upon. The U.S. Government 
created and imposed Standard Time Zones to ease the problem of 
railroad scheduling.
    You now have a similar responsibility in software. Unless the 
U.S. Government mandates inter-operability, the Sherman Act will, 
for all practical purposes, become a dead letter with respect to the 
software industry.
    Inter-operability protects the consumer, and it protects 
competition, and it's the only meaningful way to apply the Sherman 
Act to this vital industry. Inter-operability means that files 
created by one application must be readable by the next.
    Regardless of who the application creators are.
    Spreadsheet files must be equally readable by all software 
applications. Word processing files must be equally readable by all 
word processing applications.
    It's the software equivalent of standard guages and standard 
time zones. If you don't establish and enforce an interoperability 
rule, you'll dry up the market for smaller scale competitors and 
turn the market over to its biggest player.
    You'll give a de facto green light to monopoly.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    I look forward to the DOJ exercising leadership that protects 
America's strong commitment to competitive capitalism, that honors 
America's enduring hostility toward monopoly.
    Sincerely yours,
    Steven H. Johnson
    Annapolis MD 21401



MTC-00027713

From: Wendy Pellegrini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:49am
Subject: I am against this ``settlement''
    I am against this ``settlement''.
    This settlement does not punish Microsoft for their criminal 
behaviour. It rewards them. At the very least, you must force them 
to open their APIs so that competitors might stand a chance of 
competeing in the future.
    Wendy Pellegrini
    Software Engineer
    Zixlt.com, Inc.



MTC-00027714

From: Stanley R Droy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement, From 
[email protected]
    Dear Sir: I have been dealing with the computer makers, software 
producers since 1969. Thats right 32 years ago. During the last 10 
years, Microsoft corporation has done everything it could to help 
this country rise in its computer usage and availability to the 
common public. They should be given a medal for their achievements. 
To continue any form of prosecution is outrageous. We should help 
and support the Microsoft company, instead of stealing their assets 
for political gain. If the States need money, they should tax all 
the people in their state to acquire funds and not join a bandwagon 
of bandits. Sincerely yours,
    Stanley R. Droy



MTC-00027715

From: Dan Warburton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,

[[Page 28104]]

    I am very concerned that as a Monopoly microsoft is allowed to 
leverage this status in other ventures. I know ATT was not allowed 
to invest out side of its on field. So I don't think Microsoft 
should be allowed to invest outside the Windows/Office area. 
Specifically , as a monoply Microsoft should not be investing in 
Network Services (msn.net) or ISP servcies (MSN/Quest) or Media 
(msnbc). Microsoft should divest it's self of these companies.
    Thank You.



MTC-00027716

From: Laurent Domenech
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:59am
Subject: my comments
    Since your time is valuable, I'll make it short: Microsoft's 
position is a threat to consumers. The monopoly should be broken.
    Thanks,
    Laurent



MTC-00027717

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:59am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Enough is enough--Let microsoft innovate to help get this 
economy moving again.
    George Newton



MTC-00027718

From: Steve McGee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    As a taxpayer and software engineer, I think all the legal 
action against Microsoft is ridiculous. I am not now and never have 
been a Microsoft employee, but I've used their products for many 
years. They have done nothing but improve the quality of software 
and lower the prices of software. I don't agree with all their 
actions, but I don't agree with the court's decisions against them.
    Regardless of my feelings, I believe any punitive action should 
be tempered with a sense of reality. These guys have created lots of 
jobs for lots of people, and I cannot see any downside to that.
    Let's get this settled and over and move on. Let AOL and Sun and 
the rest complain all they want, but let's move on. Steve McGee 
Lakewood, Colorado



MTC-00027719

From: Alfieri, Matthew
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    --- Original Message -----
From: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network 
[mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 
Sunday, January 27, 2002 8:09 PM
To: ``[email protected]''
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. The public comment period for this issue ends on 
January 28th. Please send in your letter as soon as is convenient.
    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
    Matthew Alfieri
7 Northfield Gate
Pittsford, NY 14534
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The intention of this letter is so that I may go on record as 
being a staunch supporter of the proposed agreement that was reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The litigation 
between these two has gone on for long enough, more than three years 
actually. It is time to put this issue to rest and move on.
    The settlement actually goes further than Microsoft would have 
liked, but they decided to settle because it was in the best 
interests of the IT industry and the American economy. The 
settlement mandates that Microsoft make future versions of the 
Windows operating system to include a feature that makes it much 
easier for computer makers and consumers to remove Microsoft 
software programs from Windows and then replace it with non-
Microsoft software. This completely opens the industry up to much 
more competition, and the companies producing the competing software 
will need to deliver a ``Grade A'' product to the market, 
or people will simply not buy it.
    Everything is now in place for a stronger IT industry and a 
healthier economy. I support this settlement because it looks out 
for everyone's best interests. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew Alfieri
    Matthew Alfieri



MTC-00027720

From: Steward, Ronald Ray (UIS Student)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata B. Hesse:
    I am writing regarding the Microsoft settlement to express my 
disagreement. I am a graduate student in computer science at the 
University of Illinois at Springfield. I have observed the software 
industry for several years and watched as Microsoft grew into the 
monopoly it is now.
    This entire settlement is flawed. It apparently attempts to 
protect competition from other venders that wish to run their 
software on the Microsoft operating system. Microsoft has already 
killed off the competition in the office suite and other key 
markets. This action is simply too late.
    Much more important is that proposed settlement goes way beyond 
too little and is entirely superficial. Software design is very 
complex. There are a million ways to produce incredible advantages 
when the developer controls both the operating system and the 
software to run on it. The proposals merely attempt to preserve 
access to use and what might be thought of as advertising or ease of 
install. After this settlement has the illumination of time, it will 
be seen as a technical travisty of justice.
    This court case will make all others pale in comparison. In the 
future anyone contesting Microsoft in court will likely have to 
prepare their briefs with pen and paper because the software giant 
will have access to everything written or transmitted by computer 
and all users will be registered for targetted monitoring. Perhaps 
even every computer with a microphone attached will need to be 
unplugged to avoid eavesdropping.
    George Orwell could not imagine the power you are conceding to 
the Software giant.
    I look to our future and weep,
    Ron Steward
    CC:'ron.steward(a)epa.state.il.us''



MTC-00027721

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JONATHAN ESKANDER
33 ARLINGTON RD.
SCARSDALE, NY 10583
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter today to express my deep concern over 
the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. I believe that the sooner 
this suit comes to a close, the better. We have spent countless 
taxpayer dollars on the frivolous pursuit of case and it needs to 
come to an end.
    It is my opinion that the settlement that has been reached in 
this case is fair. Microsoft will design all future versions of its 
Windows operating system to be compatible with the products of its 
competitors. The company will also license Windows out to the top 20 
computer manufactures at the same price and on the same terms. This 
settlement will be ensured by a three-person technical committee, 
which will monitor Microsoft's future business tactics and their 
compliance with the settlement.
    This litigation needs to end. Please support this settlement. 
Thank you.

[[Page 28105]]

    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Eskander



MTC-00027722

From: Lester Housel
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
105 Lake Brantley Terrace
Longwood, FL 32779
January 27, 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 full support of the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the US department of Justice. I think the 
lawsuits were unjustified in the first place and should have ended 
long ago.
    The terms of the settlement do not even protect the consumer and 
reflect the intense lobbying efforts of Microsoft's competitors and 
the apparent lack of concern for the public's best interests by the 
lawmakers and politicians. For instance, Microsoft is forced to 
disclose interfaces and protocols that are internal to 
Windows'' operating system products. They also must grant 
computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so that 
competitors can more easily promote their own products.
    In spite of these flaws, I urge your office to finalize the 
settlement. The alternative of further litigation would be 
detrimental to our economy. I hope you suppress the nine states that 
want to drag this thing through the mud.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00027725

From: Choi, Eunice Q
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is more than just and fair. Please 
settle the case so that Microsoft will continue to deliver 
innovative software for consumers at a reasonable price.
    This case was not a case to protect the consumers but a case for 
the benefit of the competitors.



MTC-00027726

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Case
Maria Eskander
33 Arlington Rd.
Scarsdale, NY 10583
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to take this opportunity to express my support for the 
settlement that has been reached in the Microsoft antitrust case. I 
feel that prolonging this lawsuit will only hinder the future 
development of business in this nation. This country and its success 
have been built by the hard work and entrepreneurial sprit of 
American businesses. This suit chips away at this very foundation.
    The settlement that has been reached in this case is fair. 
Microsoft will design all future versions of Windows to be 
compatible with the products of its competitors; they have also 
agreed to cease any action that may be considered retaliatory. The 
terms will be ensured by a three person technical committee that 
will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. This 
settlement is the best option for America for the simple fact that 
it will bring this case to a close.
    Microsoft is one of this nations largest employers, and 
continuing this suit is an imprudent move at this time. Thank you 
for your support of this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Maria Eskander



MTC-00027727

From: Christine Scammon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:01am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I'm a concerned citizen who would like to voice her opposition 
to the proposed final judgment being considered in the Microsoft 
suit. Microsoft has used its Windows operating system to destroy 
competitors in other software markets, and every court has concluded 
that it has violated anti-trust laws. The proceeds of these 
violations is huge, yet this settlement does nothing to undo those 
profits, and if allowed to continue in these practices, it will 
certainly have serious consequences for the rest of the companies in 
this industry. If the proposed final judgment is adopted, Microsoft 
is the winner. I urge you to reject the proposed settlement.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Christine Scammon
    Champlin, MN



MTC-00027728

From: Peter F. Dubuque
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to oppose the proposed settlement in the antitrust 
case against Microsoft. The company has been twice found guilty of 
violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. I believe the proposed 
settlement is grossly inadequate in preventing future violations of 
the law. It does nothing to ensure a viable software market in which 
companies other than Microsoft can develop an innovative new product 
without facing the threat of Microsoft rolling out a free knockoff 
embedded in the operating system.
    It does nothing to ensure that alternative products have the 
information needed to interoperate with Microsoft products. It does 
nothing to address the fact that the consumer marketplace is 
impoverished by other companies'' inability to compete against 
Microsoft in the present state of the market. And it provides no 
significant obstacle to further violations of the law. (If the 
consent decree is violated, it gets extended two years...what kind 
of remedy is *that*?)
    Any reasonable settlement should at the very least include the 
following:
    - Complete and accurate documentation of *all* Microsoft file 
formats and interfaces, to allow competing products to operate in 
conjunction with them
    - Prohibition of deliberate measures taken to prevent 
interoperability with non-Microsoft products
    - Prohibition of anti-competitive pricing of Microsoft products 
(e.g. discounts on licenses to companies who agree to not use 
competing products such as Linux)
    Ideally, I'd also like to see a ban on any product or company 
acquisitions by Microsoft, or any joint ventures with other 
companies that might allow Microsoft to leverage its monopoly to 
enter a new market (e.g. transaction fees for electronic commerce or 
home entertainment).
    Microsoft has been found guilty of antitrust. I find it utterly 
unconscionable that the DOJ, having won its case, is willing to 
throw out years of work with the utterly inadequate settlement it 
has proposed.
    Peter F. [email protected]



MTC-00027729

From: Harold Holderith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:04am
    Attached is a letter prepared by Microsoft which I have signed 
and which I wholeheartedly endorse.
    Harold Holderith
565 55th Av N.E.
Saint Petersburg, FL 33703
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to take a moment to express some of my views 
regarding this case. I am a user of Microsoft products and a general 
supporter of the company. I believe that it is an example of the 
successes that can be gained under the free enterprise system. 
Although I do not agree with every decision that Microsoft has made, 
I do believe that it is entitled to its position as the industry 
leader.
    There will always be those that try to litigate away pieces of a 
company's market share. We just have to be careful to recognize when 
consumer protection is used as a veil to hide return on investment. 
I concede that Microsoft has tried to block entry to the market by 
independent vendors, and in that light we should reprimand 
Microsoft. I believe the settlement your office reached with 
Microsoft provides the common ground. It is fair, reasonable, and 
extensive. I do see the need for further action at the federal 
level.
    The settlement will force Microsoft to be a more responsible 
industry leader while allowing it to retain its competitive 
advantage. It has agreed to change the way it licenses, markets, and 
develops its software, as well as the way it deals with those that 
design or promote non-Microsoft programs. It will disclose various 
protocols and interfaces within Windows for use by the competition, 
and will allow non-Microsoft programs to be promoted in Windows.
    It appears to me that the necessary corrections have been made 
to address the issues that brought about the lawsuits. We

[[Page 28106]]

must now allow the IT industry and the economy to move forward. This 
settlement is the tool. It has been three years and countless 
dollars in the making, and should be given a chance to work.
    Sincerely,
    Harold Holderith



MTC-00027732

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 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,
    D. Lewis
    PO Box 9145
    Bakersfield, CA 93389-9145



MTC-00027733

From: Barbara Fiegas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: Proprosed Final Judgement Judge,
    We are writing today to emplore you to take the Proposed Final 
Judgement and add some teeth. As the Court of Appeals has affirmed 
Microsoft had unlawfully and intentionally deceived Java developers 
and ``polluted'' the Java standard, we are asking you to 
restrict their ability to modify Java technologies and add punitive 
incentives for them to support computer industries standards.
    As a small business, we appreciate the free market opportunities 
that exist here in America, and hope you will keep them firmly in 
mind as you make this decision.
    Respectfully yours,
    Barbara Fiegas
    Swift Fulfillment Services
    1A Glenwood Ave
    Lynbrook, NY 11563
    voice: 516-593-1198
    fax: 516-596-2911



MTC-00027734

From: Gary Gordhamer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to express my dis-satisfaction with the current 
proposed settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft. I have been 
working in the information technology area for over 10 years now, 
and have seen the Windows platform grow from a limited use simple 
operating system, to a monopolistic control of the destop and mid-
range server market.
    Their growth has been through the use of legal and illegal 
business practices as shown by the verdict the recent and distant 
court cases.
    The current proposed settlement does not seem to offer any form 
of monopolistic control as it would seem is required.
    I tend to compare this to the monopoly of the phone system. When 
the ``baby'' bells were born, the only way they could 
complete was by strict adhearince to standards set by the goverment 
(FCC), and strick fines for not following these standards.
    This allows me to choose from many differnt phone options, and 
phone hardware which I can purchase at many store from many vendors. 
Yet when I choose to purchase a computer, or computer operating 
system there tends to be only one option available. With fixed 
price, fixed features and limited compatible options.
    The current settlement proposole does not offer a open fixed 
standard that is controlled external to Microsoft. It does not put 
into place a way to infuse the market with competing companies that 
will be able to deliver product to the supply chain as Microsoft 
can.
    I would hope that one day I can visit my local Wall-Mart store 
and see a set of competing products on the shelf, offering various 
options and price points. Untill then I must still lease my computer 
from Microsoft and get only what they allow, much like the phones of 
the 1970's that I leased from AT&T.
    Respectfully,
    Gary Gordhamer
    Owner / DBA
    H&H Consulting services, LLC.
    Waukesha, WI



MTC-00027735

From: Dale Beeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement!
Dale Beeman
598 Foxwood Boulevard
Englewood, FL 34223
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    For quite some time now, I have been following the case against 
Microsoft filed by the DOJ. I am therefore quite familiar with the 
issues involved. Considering that this case has dragged on for over 
three years, spending an exorbitant amount of taxpayer dollars, I am 
very pleased that a settlement has finally been proposed. Though I 
strongly feel that the terms of the settlement are very harsh for 
Microsoft, I am willing to support this in the interest of putting 
this matter to bed.
    Ending this lawsuit now is a very necessary action to help boost 
the sagging economy and revitalize the slowing innovations in the IT 
industry. In order to achieve the fastest close to this matter, 
Microsoft has agreed to terms that were not even found illegal in 
the lawsuit against them. They have also agreed to terms that have 
the distinct potential to limit their competitiveness. Microsoft 
agreements include the unprecedented move to share their internal 
Windows interfaces. Microsoft has also agreed to cease its more 
aggressive marketing practices.
    This kind of settlement has obviously taken some time to draft 
and the terms of which should more than appease Microsoft's 
opponents. There is therefore no need to press this matter any 
further.
    Sincerely,
    Dale Beeman



MTC-00027736

From: Judy L. Powers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlepersons:
    It is absolutely amazing to me! AOL-Time-Warner is the king of 
the industry in keeping its customers captive by providing a whole 
?city? of options to its bank of members (mostly first-time internet 
users), and then making it difficult for their less experienced 
members to get out of AOL to surf freely on the web. And these are 
the people crying ?sue the bastards? about the Microsoft 
Corporation? Isn?t this the pot calling the kettle black? Protracted 
and repetitive litigation is never a benefit to the public, and 
rarely to either client, just to the attorneys. Is AOL's counsel 
short on billable hours these days?
    Thanks for listening. Let's stop the litigious behavior, thank 
the judiciary for its most diligent work and call it a day with the 
spurious afterthought suits.
    Judy L. Powers
    6593 Alleghany Court
    San Jose, CA 95120
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00027737

From: Walt Goodpastor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:11am
Subject: Support for Microsoft
    Punishing successful producers like Microsoft is not only 
morally wrong, it is stupid and self-defeating. It rewards 
Microsoft's competitors, thereby assuring that consumers will be 
stuck with inferior products and services.
    Free-market competition obtains the best results by rewarding 
the superior performers. It is a process of selection of the best, 
not a process for inclusion of the mediocre and inferior. Free-
market competition is not the ``Special Olympics,'' and if 
the foolish people who insist on making it so are successful, the 
result will be a degradation of the quality of life for everyone.



MTC-00027738

From: 
[email protected]@
inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:13am

[[Page 28107]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The outcome of Microsoft antitrust case will be critical to the 
technology industry's future. Unfortunately for those of us in the 
industry, the remaining states want to prolong the case and impose 
broad, irresponsible remedies.
    The Microsoft antitrust case has been a key factor in slowing 
innovation and growth in Massachusetts's technology industry. It was 
not mere coincidence that the decline of the industry followed in 
the footsteps of this case. With the future of Microsoft and the 
Windows platform in doubt, the case brought crippling uncertainty to 
the industry. Smaller entrepreneurial companies that have been the 
lifeblood of this industry were forced to hold back on innovations 
because of their limited research and development budgets. With 
fewer innovations coming out of smaller software developers and 
uncertainty as to the future of the platform, corporations also 
slowed their own IT spending.
    To make matters worse, the state attorneys general who did not 
to join the existing settlement are pursuing remedies that will 
wreak havoc on the rest of the industry as they attempt to lock down 
Microsoft. By some accounts, they would require Microsoft to produce 
over 1000 different versions of Windows. For software developers, 
the testing of products for bugs and compatibility issues is one of 
the most expensive parts of product development. How will the 
garage-based software developer ever meet the demands of testing 
their products on all those versions?
    If the attorneys general want to ensure a healthy future for the 
technology industry, they will join the Department of Justice and 
nine other attorney generals in the effective settlement already 
reached.
    Further litigation will only continue the economic downturn and 
their proposed alternative to the settlement will likely result in 
further consolidation in the industry and the death of the 
independent software developer.
    Howard Diamond
    Chairman, Corporate Software & Technology



MTC-00027739

From: Clint Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please see the following letter regarding the Microsoft Settlement:
Clinton Miller
8609 51st Terrace, East
Bradenton, FL 34202
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today with the hope that my views on this matter 
will play a role in bringing closure to the excessively overdone 
lawsuit against Microsoft.
    After three long years of litigation, with its immoderate 
allocation of taxpayer dollars, I was very pleased to hear that the 
DOJ proposed a settlement last November. Bringing closure to this 
case will give the economy the boost it needs and give Microsoft the 
opportunity to get back into the game and stabilize the IT industry 
once again.
    I have a hard time grasping what the dissatisfied states have 
issue with and why they continue to press for litigation. If they 
closely examine the terms of the settlement, they will see that 
Microsoft's concessions are more than fair. They have even agreed to 
terms and conditions that were not even at issue in the lawsuit. 
Microsoft's competitors should be satisfied to know that Microsoft 
has agreed to disclose their internal interfaces as well as provide 
licenses for their intellectual property. Over and beyond this, 
Microsoft has also agreed to create future versions of Windows that 
will allow for non-Microsoft compatibility.
    To me, if the Government, Microsoft and the competitors are 
satisfied with the fairness of the settlement, this should be more 
than enough for formalizing it.
    Let's do this soon, in the best interest of all parties 
involved.
    Sincerely,
    Clinton Miller
    CC:[email protected]@
inetgw



MTC-00027740

From: Mike Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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. I will be brief here because I feel that others far more 
qualified and eloquest have already state the why's and wherefores 
of my position. Suffice it to say that I feel the proposed 
settlement fails completely to punish Microsoft for the 
anticompetitive practices that they were found to have employeed.
    And on a similar note I also feel that there is no real 
enforcement of the remedies whih are put forth in the proposed 
settlement. The remedies which are put forth, being wholly 
inadequate in it's attempt to modify the business practices of 
Microsoft, are provided no real means of enforcement. The psuedo-
enforcement provided in the proposed settlement amounts to an 
oversite committee with no powers to enact change except through the 
courts.
    Thank you for your time. I hope that I have been able to add 
something positive the discourse.
    Michael J. Anderson
    Bartlesville, OK 74006
    [email protected]



MTC-00027741

From: Marc Garon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am among the millions of computer system professionals who 
disapproves of the measures imposed against Microsoft, as they are 
woefully inadequate in proportion to the damage incurred on the IT 
industry.



MTC-00027742

From: John E Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice
    I wanted to let you know that I strongly support the 
negotiatedsettlement of the Microsoft case in its present form. I 
urge you to support this result and feel it is very much in the 
public interest.
    I will greatly appreciate your consideration of my comments and 
your efforts to help effect a final settlement along lines of that 
already proposed.
    Thank you very much.
    John E. Campbell Jr.
    PO Box 537
    Sanibel FL 33957



MTC-00027743

From: Michael Shuey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:15am
Subject: Re: Proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement
    Attn. Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice:
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. In particular, I would like to voice my 
concerns over section III D, API Disclosure.
    It has been ruled (and upheld in subsequent appeal) that 
Microsoft has abused its monopoly power, particularly in the areas 
of operating system software and business applications. As long as 
Microsoft is able to modify the application programmer interface 
(API) secretly the company will always be able to prevent competing 
business applications from running at peak efficiency and to prevent 
non-Microsoft operating system code from running the latest 
Microsoft business software. Unless Microsoft is forced to openly 
publish the Windows API specification third-party developers will 
always be unable to compete on equal footing. A measure like section 
III D is necessary.
    While section III D is a step in the right direction, the 
proposed remedy is far from an effective solution. The Windows API 
is one of the most complex software interfaces in use 
today--merely documenting it is a daunting task.
    With such a large degree of complexity it is quite easy to omit 
certain details. In the current settlement there are no provisions 
to handle such omissions, whether they are accidental or 
intentional. As the Windows API evolves (witness the changes that 
occur with every major new release of operating system software) it 
would be very easy to again recreate secret, proprietary API 
extensions to restore competitive edge for Microsoft business 
software. Without some kind of regular auditing procedure for the 
Windows source code, performed by a well-funded neutral third party, 
there is no way to guarantee that complete, accurate documentation 
will continue to be made available.
    Unfortunately, a third-party code audit would not adequately 
solve the problem. Currently, according to Definition A and

[[Page 28108]]

Definition J in the proposed settlement, the Windows API is limited 
to interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows, 
excluding APIs used by other programs or hardware device drivers. 
Without providing a broader definition of ``API'' 
Microsoft can easily avoid the API disclosure restrictions by merely 
claiming to have integrated a portion of their application software 
with the underlying operating system (such as in the case of 
Internet Explorer).
    Futhermore, the definition (J) of ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' itself is problematic. The definition limits 
itself to particular versions of Microsoft software distributed via 
conventional channels. Newer versions of Microsoft software, or 
versions of existing software introduced though online services, may 
not be counted as ``Microsoft Middleware'' for the 
purposes of this settlement, effectively allowing Microsoft to 
extend their API to support their software without concern for API 
disclosure.
    Without some signiciant revision to the proposed settlement, I 
believe that little will be done to prevent Microsoft from 
continuing to abuse its monopoly to limit the amount of choice 
available to the consumer.
    Mike Shuey



MTC-00027744

From: Albert Fedorchak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed anti-trust settlement is not in the 
consumers best interest. Microsoft has abused their position and 
stifled compitition, created incompatibilties with other OS's and 
even with it's own OS. They should be broken up and auctioned off to 
the hightest bidder. Criminal charges should be filed for conspirasy 
to gain market share by illegaly abusing thier monopoly and some of 
the major player should go to JAIL.
    Albert Fedorchak



MTC-00027745

From: 
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a tech entrepreneur for the the past 12 years, I've 
traditionally had little concern for how government could or might 
affect my business. With most small businesses, there isn't the time 
to follow legislation nor the resources to hire lobbyists as AOL, 
Sun, Oracle and Microsoft do.
    However, the influence that government wields over our industry 
appears to be increasing and has finally forced me to take notice 
and get involved. Through my membership in the Association for 
Competitive Technology and other organizations, I have started to 
follow these issues more closely and, at least, attempt to voice my 
concerns with lawmakers. It's clear that small technology businesses 
can no longer afford to simply ignore the role government plays our 
industry, despite the likelihood they won't be heard.
    Nowhere has this been more obvious than in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. In the absence of an active community of small tech 
businesses, corporate behemoths that have branded Microsoft 
``public enemy number one'' have claimed the mantle of 
``Defenders of the Industry.'' Yet, their cries for 
further litigation and harsher remedies seem to be borne less out of 
concern for industry as a whole and more out of corporate self-
interest. If they are successful, the result would be further damage 
to the entrepreneurial technology companies that are the life blood 
of the industry.
    While it may go too far in some areas, the settlement agreed to 
by the DOJ, nine states and Microsoft addresses the real concerns of 
small tech businesses. The provisions that guarantee access to the 
information (API's and other code) necessary for developers, create 
transparent pricing, and force Microsoft to relinquish control of 
the desktop will ensure innovation and competition will continue to 
flourish.
    The biggest benefit of this settlement, however, is that it 
finally puts this case behind us. While it has loomed over the 
industry, small tech businesses have been held hostage as the 
industry waits to see the outcome of the trial. The outcome of the 
case will have collateral effects throughout the industry and the 
threat of court-mandated technological changes has left small 
companies with larger partners having limited budgets for research 
and development in limbo. Many small companies find their success in 
Microsoft's wake. Minor penalties levied against a behemoth 
Microsoft, even in the form of handouts to Microsoft's behemoth 
competitors, will have deadly ramifications to small companies 
technologically on the edge and financially on the bubble.
    Judge Kollar-Kotelly, I urge you to accept this settlement no 
behalf of the thousands of small tech businesses that need closure 
to these case, not continued litigation to benefit a few of 
Microsoft's largest competitors.
    E. Andre Carter
    President
    Irimi Incorporated
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027746

From: Eleanor Polini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:15am
Subject: re: microsoft settlement
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write you today to support the Microsoft settlement. This 
settlement agreement contains provisions that extend well beyond the 
products and procedures that were actually at issue in the suit. 
After three years of needless lawyers and testimony, and another 
three months of intense negotiations with a court appointed 
moderator, this settlement has been reached and should be 
implemented.
    The provisions of the agreement include requirements for 
Microsoft to dramatically change its business practices and to 
become accountable to the government and the industry. One of the 
most significant developments in the case is Microsofts agreement to 
license its intellectual property to competitors. The provision 
requires Microsoft to license that intellectual property, instead of 
prohibit the other company from using it. To ensure accountability 
and compliance with this settlement, Microsoft has agreed to submit 
its business practices and engineering to a three person, government 
appointed technical committee
    These provisions, among others, will serve to increase 
competition and foster innovation inside the technology industry. I 
support the settlement, and want the country to move
    forward.
    Sincerely,
    Eleanor Polini



MTC-00027747

From: Hilton, Keith
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This lawsuit needs to be settled now! While Microsoft may have 
gone too far in some of it's business practices, it's competition is 
using the courts and the politicians to fight, rather than doing it 
in the marketplace. It's hurting consumers and having a negative 
affect on the marketplace.
    Keith Hilton
    Verizon Information Services
    Manager--Planning, Performance and Measures
    Phone: (972)453-3763
    Fax: (972)453-7961
    [email protected]



MTC-00027748

From: Melanie Reisenauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:23am
Subject: Anti-trust suit against Microsoft
    Dear Madam or Sir:
    You must not use our United States government to attack a 
private company! If Microsoft has committed a crime (a real crime, 
i.e. real fraud or real coercion) then by all means fine them, jail 
them, etc... but to attack Microsoft for the reason that we all know 
they are being attacked--because they are ``too big/
successful/profitable, etc..'' is immoral and goes against what 
the Founding Fathers of this country fought for; the freedom to 
educate oneself, learn a skill, enter the market with that skill and 
become successful (yes, even if more successful then the 
competition)--the American Dream.
    To attack a company because of it's ability to be successful 
sends a very negative message to all entrepreneurial individuals; 
which by the way, without those individuals this country would not 
have the standard of living that it does today. The message states 
very plainly, ``Be careful! Do not become too successful! That 
which you have spent your life building with your own sweat, 
initiative, and hard work can be taken from you (by our own form of 
coercion) because we have the power and the guns.''
    I would ask you, ``By what authority?'' How is it 
possible in the freest nation on earth that you are able to take up 
guns and the threat of a jail sentence or heavy fines and penalize 
someone/a company for their

[[Page 28109]]

ability to be very successful???? Success is not a crime and the 
instant you treat it as such you have moved us closer to becoming a 
socialist/communist government controlled state. Haven't any of you 
read any history? Don't you know that this is exactly what happened 
in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia? Their ``governments'' 
(today we see them for what they were--thugs; thugs with guns 
and power) decided they had the right to simply take over private 
businesses, all in the name of ``the people''. Look where 
it got those ``people''. There ceased to be private 
business, no one could find a job, food lines, production as they 
knew it came to a halt, the ``government'' lived like 
kings while their ``philosophy'' ``for the 
people'' killed them!!
    So I ask you again, ``By what authority?'' Do we need 
to destroy the last great bastion of freedom on this earth (America) 
with tyranny rule and socialist/communist policies just so that Bill 
Gates, and any others who have created wealth both for themselves 
and countless others will be ``brought down to a manageable 
size?'' And who arbitrarily and by what authority decides what 
is a ``manageable size?''
    Again, ``by what authority?'' Answer that question 
honestly. If you do, your answer will be, ``By no 
authority.'' You are simply assuming the right to do this and 
yet you have none. Rights are bestowed onto the INDIVIDUAL to 
protect them (and their property/company) from majority rule, 
government coercion, mob rule, etc. All are just different names for 
the same group.
    This is a very immoral and slippery slope that you embark upon. 
You should turn and immediately walk away from this slope, knowing 
that this country will be safe again from anyone spouting ``in 
the name of the people''.
    Bill Gates is one of those ``people''. What about his 
rights? Does he not deserve the same protection from force/coercion/
mob-majority rule? That answer is yes, not because he is extremely 
wealthy, but inspite of it. He has not committed a crime, he is not 
a criminal. He is a man with a vision and the fortitude to make it 
happen. Does our United States Government now have the authority to 
punish such men???
    Anyone reading this e-mail, if you've even allowed yourself to 
read this far and haven't deleted it by now, should pick up a copy 
of Ayn Rand's : Atlas Shrugged and read it. It is where you will 
find the answer to the question: ``By what authority?''
    A United States citizen,
    Melanie M. Hoffman



MTC-00027749

From: Steve Edgecomb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a long time user of Microsoft products. They have always 
worked for me and been what I needed as a user.
    Having said that, I think Microsoft has used less than savory 
business tactics to gain market share. I feel that Microsoft is 
attempting nothing less than complete domination of the PC software 
market. That is a strong statement I know. I will not attempt to 
recap any of the testimony that anyone has heard in this case. You 
know better than I what has transpired. As a user and as an IT 
Director, I make that strong statement from a cost basis. Microsoft 
releases software with a lot of features, and a lot of bugs. This is 
an attempt to rush to market. They then produce an 
``upgrade'' which they charge for. Sometime, they charge a 
lot. Most often, the upgrade is what they promised would be in the 
first version.
    I am all for better products and new features, but it should, 
number 1, work; and number 2, not cost a fortune to upgrade or to 
keep pace. I fear the price structure should Microsoft gain total 
control of this market. Even now, it is a confusing array of license 
structure, upgrade costs, service packs, and patches.
    Steven H. Edgecomb
    IT Director
    Mutual Benefits Corporation
    [email protected]



MTC-00027750

From: Daniel Sells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please Stop Wasting MY Tax Money!!!!!
    This lawsuit is a huge waste of tax payer money. The federal 
government should use MY tax money to provide valued services to me 
and all Americans.
    WHAT DOES ANYONE STAND TO GAIN BY SUEING MICROSOFT? Know one is 
forced to buy the Windows operating system, browser or any other 
Microsoft product. Apple Macintosh has been around for years and is 
a very viable alternative to the Windows platform for all who chose 
such. Linux is growing in popularity as another choice. I don?t 
understand why your DOJ is pursuing this. If other companies want to 
sue Microsoft, they have the courts to do so. Let AOL, IBM or 
whoever sue them WITHOUT USING MY TAX DOLLARS! The DOJ should step 
down and let the other companies battle this out as long as their 
willing to pay.
    Thank you,
    Daniel Sells



MTC-00027751

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
908 Dutch Mill Drive
Ballwin, MO 63011-3548
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I understand that the Justice Department is presently soliciting 
comments from the public regarding the proposed Microsoft 
settlement.
    I am a retiree who owns Microsoft stock. I also own two 
computers that are using the Microsoft operating system. I will soon 
own a third one. We have come to where we are in this technology due 
mostly to the efforts of Microsoft. I do not see that the Microsoft 
operating systems have hampered others from getting into the 
business. In fact I am writing this to you using the Netscape 
Messenger program.
    It is my wish that you approve the settlement. This case has 
been pending for over three years, and during that time the 
offensive and advantage have changed hands too many times to count. 
The prospect of additional litigation offers only one certainty: 
uncertainty.
    The settlement on the table takes away that uncertainty. While I 
am sure there will be some argument in the details, the agreement 
provides substantial opportunities for growth in the research and 
development of non-Microsoft software programs. Microsoft has agreed 
to eliminate restrictive activities in the areas of pricing, 
licensing, distribution and system configuration.
    I hope that you see the wisdom of going forward with this 
settlement in the very near future.
    Sincerely,
    Roy D. Welch



MTC-00027752

From: Gwendalle Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly advise that the settlement already stipulated be 
accepted regarding Microsoft. Enough is enough.
    Sincerely,
    Gwendalle cooper



MTC-00027753

From: Gil Friend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing to comment on the proposed Microsoft/DOJ anti-trust 
settlement. As a business executive at a company both highly 
dependent on computing technology and specifically involved in 
software development, I've come to the conclusion that this 
settlement is not in the public interest, and fails to remedies the 
problems that provoked the action in the first place.
    The settlement leaves the Microsoft monopoly intact, with 
numerous opportunities to the company to effectively exempt itself 
from crucial provisions. The recently proposed 
``donation'' to schools is just one example of how 
Microsoft can turn matters to their own advantage (in this case by 
decimating Apple's position in the education market).
    In addition, the proposed settlement fails to address the 
critical ``barrier to entry'' problem, enabling Microsoft 
to maintain an effective ``lock'' on the applications 
market.
    Consumers, not Microsoft, should decide what products are on 
their computers. The settlement must eliminate Microsoft's various 
barriers--business and technical--to allowing combinations 
of non-Microsoft operating systems, applications, and software 
components to run properly with Microsoft products.

[[Page 28110]]

    The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States are in 
the public interest and absolutely necessary, but they are not 
sufficient without these remedies.
    The Tunney Act provides for the Court to hold public 
proceedings, with citizens and consumer groups afforded an equal 
opportunity to participate, along with Microsoft's competitors and 
customers. I hope you will encourage those proceedings, and consider 
carefully how to proceed in this matter. Your decisions have great 
significance for the health of the US economy's most vital 
industries, by eliminating Microsoft's ability to illegal constrain 
markets and innovation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important 
matter.
    Sincerely yours,
    Gil Friend
    President & CEO
    Natural Logic, Inc.
    PO Box 119
    Berkeley CA 94701



MTC-00027754

From: Raymond Rider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
4537 Amboy Road
Memphis, TN 38117-6101
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Thank you for your leadership in these trying times.
    As a systems administrator I am directly affected by the 
setbacks in the industry. The American technology industry has been 
on hold since the inception of this suit three years ago. I have 
been without work since September 2000 due to a crash in the IT 
industry, for the most part a direct cause of the attempt to split 
Microsoft into smaller pieces. This has caused extreme problems in 
the American IT field. A once strong and promising field, in which 
America was the leader, has become a wasteland of ruined American 
companies and unemployed American professionals. The harmful 
antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft must end. This lawsuit is the 
cause of these problems. The sooner this litigation comes to an end 
the better it will be for America. Because Microsoft has agreed to 
settle on terms favorable to its competitors there is no reason to 
continue the suit. Microsoft has agreed to publicly document and 
disclose to its competitors the Windows operating system internal 
interfaces and server interoperability protocols. I can tell you 
that these are huge concessions of intellectual property rights.
    Thank you for the work you have done in bringing about this 
settlement. Hopefully Microsoft and the rest of the American IT 
industry will be able to get back to business, and America can get 
back on its feet. Thank you.
    Sincerely for American IT resurgence,
    Raymond Rider



MTC-00027755

From: Sage M. Friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To:
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    United States Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I would like to comment on the settlement in the Microsoft case. 
As I see it this settlement does not address the fundamental issues 
of Microsoft's aggressive and illegal behavior as a monopolist, 
further it gives Microsoft far to many opportunities to continue its 
behavior.
    Among those issues not addressed is the barrier to entry for 
emerging operating systems, which will not be able to run any of the 
70,000 existing application available on Windows. Consumers need 
freedom from intrusion by Microsoft into their computing choices. 
Microsoft has demonstrated a unwillingness to let consumers choose 
their own software, they have done this by including irrelevant 
software in with Windows. They have extended their monopoly into the 
realms of photo processing, forcing consumer to choose between 
Microsoft's stable of photo developers when developing electronic 
photos unless the consumer follows complicated procedure to find 
other options.
    The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States are far 
superior to the proposed settlement. I respectfully urge you to hold 
public proceedings under the Tunney Act to give citizens and 
consumer groups an equal opportunity to participate in this process.
    Thank you
    -Sage Friedman
    -Richard Perl
    Pacific Partners
    1 West 67th Street, #500
    New York
    NY 10023



MTC-00027756

From: brandon rettke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Dept. of Justice
601 D. Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I write to you in support of the proposed Microsoft settlement 
that would direct millions of dollars to in-need schools across the 
country for much needed technology.
    While much attention is given to the lack of technology in poor 
urban areas, we can not forget that many rural schools lack the even 
most basic technology in their schools. There are parts of rural 
Wisconsin that don't have 911 in every part of the county, or 
schools that don't have classrooms with phones, let alone computers.
    Technology can be used as a wonderful teaching tool, and I 
encourage the U.S. Government to support the settlement as a way to 
get much needed money to our schools in need. Thank you for your 
time.
    Sincerely
    Brandon Rettke
    3122 Glenhaven Place
    Eau Claire, WI 54703



MTC-00027757

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 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,
    Paul Hawkins
    8931 Farley
    Overland Park, KS 66212



MTC-00027758

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:31am
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 allowed under the Tunney Act, I want to comment on the 
settlement proposed to deal with the Microsoft anti-trust case. My 
main concern is that the proposed remedy fails to prohibit 
intentional incompatibilities historically used by Microsoft. In 
many documented instances in the past, Microsoft has purposefully 
made its applications impossible to run on competing operating 
systems. I believe that this is anti-competetive, given their 
admitted monopoly, yet the proposed remedy does not deal with this 
at all. See the following Web page for details of this: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#caldera In general, I agree 
with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Thank you.
    John Burger
    Writing for myself



MTC-00027759

From: Rosemary Tracey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 28111]]

    Leave Microsoft the opportunity to move foward. Terms of 
settlement are tough enough, do not reject settlement.



MTC-00027760

From: Stephen S. Messutta
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    1/28/02: Several years ago, when I was desperately trying to 
convince my family that Mac was superior, my kids insisted they 
wanted the ``Magic Schoolbus'' programs, which were 
offered exclusively by Microsoft Home and supposedly worked on Mac 
and PC.
    We eventually purchased 2 of the programs. One worked 
``ok'' and the other did not, for no apparent reason. 
Nothing I did made it work. Microsoft offered tech support but only 
at a toll-call phone number. When I did reach tech support they 
could not help. What I learned about why one of the series would 
work fine and the other not, however, made me sick.
    Microsoft was really a software ``broker'', buying or 
commissioning programs from different people but packaging them as 
their own. So you could have different programs with different 
glitches, nothing the same. If you bought a ``package'' or 
wrapped programs, such as Microsoft Office, the programs might not 
work with each other. In addition, they might issue the program to 
get the ``jump'' on someone else, whether the software was 
proven or not.
    Thus you could have a program which had been designed for PC but 
which was offered on the same CD or disk for MAC, but did not work 
properly on a MAC machine. Sometimes it felt as though it was a 
conspiracy to make MAC users switch to PC just to get the programs 
to work right. I tested my theories because I purchased a MAC 
Performa 640CD, which had both a MAC platform AND PC 
platform--with MAC-OS on one side and Windows 3.1 on the other. 
What I felt began to happen, however, was that fewer and fewer 
programs were offered as MAC compatible, in order to get the 
programs out into the PC market quickly and beat Microsoft to the 
punch, because if the program was first offered as MAC compatible 
Microsoft would try to clone a deceptively similar version of it for 
Windows which did not function well or at all on MAC. If you destroy 
the software market, the demand for the hardware disappears . . . . 
What I also learned was that because MS-DOS was so cumbersome 
compared to MAC-OS, that more and more ``power'' was 
needed to run the ``Windows'' programs--resulting in 
the need for more and more powerful machines, resulting in extremely 
rapid obsolescence. To me this is a primary illegal and unfair 
combination. In terms of my 640CD, I witnessed the difference there 
as well: MAC-OS programs continued to work fine for upwards of 5 
years. I had a lot of other software, such as Broderbund, for 
children, which was wonderful and educational, and with which I 
never had a problem, MAC or PC. After less than a year, however, 
Windows 3.1 was outdated because newer PC software required more 
power.
    Especially as a member of my local school board, I feel that 
Microsoft deserves not only to be dismantled, but severely punished 
for effectively putting an unfair and unnecessary drain on our 
economy in its attempt to monopolize and destroy all competition.
    When two brats--Steven Jobs and Bill Gates--have the 
power to manipulate the economy that way, enough is enough. They 
might as well have been named ``Armour'' and 
``Swift'' and Upton Sinclair might just as well have 
written about the excesses of the software industry. I also believe 
that in an attempt to undercut MAC, PC began to rely upon cheap, 
inferior foreign components. Among other things, this resulted in a 
loss of jobs in a potentially rapidly growing sector of our economy.
    Finally, I believe that the ``Microsoft'' scandal, as 
I would like to call it, has been more devastating than ENRON to 
millions of ordinary citizens who attempted to follow the prior 
administration's lead in ramping up to the ``information 
superhighway'', and that the entire system of issuance of 
patents and copyrights needs to be overhauled: if a person has the 
ability to create a ``superior'' program from which 
another can create an inferior ``clone'' but outmarket the 
superior product, there is something wrong with our system of 
protection for intellectual property.
    Stephen Messutta
    1043 Manor Drive
    Wilmette, IL 60091
    [email protected]
    Cell/VoiceMail: 847.606.2782
    CC:'rks(a)pcsintl.com''



MTC-00027761

From: Doug Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to add my request that the final settlement of the 
Microsoft case be based on much harsher terms than the ones now 
being considered. As a consumer I am concerned that Microsoft will 
again abuse the very lenient terms now proposed. As I see the new 
Microsoft XP operating system unfolding I am again seeing their 
monopolistic practices continue. An example, MS has now (or in the 
near future) ended all direct support for its past operating 
systems. This forces consumers to switch to the new and only other 
available operating system. MS has further begun a pricing strategy 
that will not allow consumers to buy their product outright at a 
reasonable price; which forces consumers to ``rent'' their 
products. Once this phase is complete, MS can raise the 
``rental'' price at their whim. Thank you for allowing me 
to contact you.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas Clark
    4107 Jefferson St.
    Austin, Texas



MTC-00027762

From: Kenneth W Cochran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current Microsoft Antitrust Proposed Settlement is grossly 
insufficient as a Remedy for their practices.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Kenneth W. Cochran, CDP
    Alexander City, Alabama



MTC-00027763

From: The Salmons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:35am
Subject: settlement
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    The boom in technology over the past ten has been the energy 
behind our economic prosperity. New innovations lead to confidence 
and spending among Americans. Our economy is need of assistance. 
Accepting the Microsoft settlement is the first step to economic 
recovery. The Microsoft Company and the Department of Justice have 
done an excellent job in finding the balance for marketing their 
product without endangering their competitors.
    Please adopt the settlement and bring the issue to closure.
    Sincerely,
    James E. Salmon
    Moab, Utah



MTC-00027764

From: Dean Barrere
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1200 Virginia Drive
Tipp City, OH 45371
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    This settlement is important to our economy. Our country must 
move on. As I am happily using the new Microsoft XP, I can only 
further express my concern regarding the delay in the settlement's 
approval. Of course, I release that much of the current delay is due 
to legal requirements, including the public comment period required 
under the Tunney Act, during which time I am writing now.
    As I review the terms of the settlement, it seems that Microsoft 
is making a concerted effort to make beneficial changes in licensing 
and marketing of its world-renowned software. While it seems evident 
that the settlement only benefits all involved, I do not understand 
why there would be any further action taken on the Federal level. 
Why tie up tight budgets fighting a battle that has already been 
settled well?
    Better to peaceably resolved disputes at relatively low cost and 
with a good spirit created, than to litigate disputes at high 
expense with only smoldering rancor created. As our economy is 
challenged, let us help promote the competitive nature of America, 
and help foster America's economic growth. Let's get back to 
business, and let the American IT industry help us get back on our 
feet. I thank you for your support of the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Dean Barrere

[[Page 28112]]



MTC-00027765

From: Sudha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It does not make sense to consider Microsoft a monopoly. Titans 
like IBM and SUN have been the real monopoly for years--just 
check out any of their products like LearningSpace from IBM or Java.
    1. Microsoft's products are VERY EASY to use as opposed to other 
products that have very difficult learning curves.
    2. It is very easy to learn Microsoft product with EXTENSIVE 
help within the application, may books to choose from, and also on 
the web. On the contrary other products do not even have books. 
Training and support from other vendors are 10 times more expensive!
    3. IBM and SUN have been the real monopoly. They always have 
``pushed'' their products--I know for a fact from 
first hand experience. And when they ruled all were happy!
    Sudha
    Database Administrator
    Department of Human Oncology
    Telephone: 608.263.1549
    Email: 

    [email protected]



MTC-00027766

From: Burgess Allison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the Proposed Final Judgment:
* The Proposed Final Judgment fails to prohibit 
anticompetitive practices towards OEMs.
* The Proposed Final Judgment fails to prohibit 
anticompetitive license terms currently used by Microsoft.
* The Proposed Final Judgment fails to prohibit intentional 
incompatibilities historically used by Microsoft.
* The Proposed Final Judgment preserves Microsoft's monopoly 
power--which Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing.
* The Proposed Final Judgment does nothing to restore 
competition.
* The Proposed Final Judgment allows and encourages 
significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would delay the 
emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating systems, and is 
not in the public interest.
    It is astonishing that this settlement was arranged and 
publicized as being pro-business in the aftermath of September 11. 
The Proposed Final Judgment is only ``pro'' for one 
business--Microsoft. It is anti-business for hundreds of other 
companies and for the overall health of the IT industry.
    The Proposed Final Judgment is also anti-law and anti-courts. 
Microsoft demonstrated during hearings before the court a wanton 
disregard for the truth, and for the respect due to federal courts 
and the US Department of Justice. Its representations mocked the 
court system and the Department of Justice. To reward such a company 
with this Proposed Final Judgment is nonsensical, and would hurt the 
long term effectiveness of our antitrust laws and the respect for 
our system of justice.
    Not to put too fine a point on it, but if this Final Judgement 
is approved, Microsoft will openly gloat about the accuracy of Bill 
Gates'' prediction from 4 years ago, ``There is no fine, 
there will be no fine, no-one ever pays a fine.''
    This hurts business and it hurts the justice system.
    G. Burgess Allison
    8301 Westchester Drive
    Vienna, VA 22182
    [email protected]
    703-280-1477
    Yes, I am a US citizen of voting age.



MTC-00027767

From: Kevin J. Burgam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement as it currently stands is bad idea. It 
will not foster greater competition, nor will it prevent Microsoft 
from monopolizing a truly great resource, the internet. Please stop 
it.
    Thank you.
    Kevin J. Burgam --
    Kevin Burgam is a Technical Support Specialist with Datacomp 
Appraisal Services, Inc.
    He may be contacted by the following methods:
    email: [email protected]
    phone:616-574-0480 x215
    direct: 616-988-4215 or 877-407-0215
    fax:616-574-0486
    Datacomp Appraisal Services, Inc.
    3215 Eaglecrest Dr. NE Ste.100
    Grand Rapids, MI 49525-7046



MTC-00027768

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:39am
Subject: (no subject)
    4 Spruce Drive
    East Brunswick, NJ 08816-2017
    January 10, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice, 950 PennsylvaniaAvenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    During the beginning ofNovember 2001, the Department of Justice, 
Microsoft Corporation, and ninestates, with assistance from a 
mediator negotiated the terms of a settlementthat will bring an end 
to the antitrust lawsuit. The suit has been going on for over three 
years, and I supportany agreement that will put this senseless suit 
to rest.
    Per the settlement,Microsoft has agreed to design future 
versions of Windows to provide a functionto make it easy for 
computer makers, consumers and software developers topromote non-
Microsoft software within Windows. The function will make it 
extremely to add or remove access to featuresbuilt in to Windows or 
to non-Microsoft software. Consumers will have the freedom to choose 
to change theirconfiguration at any time.
    This is a good settlement for all involved, especially 
consumers. I support the settlement, and hope it isapproved as soon 
as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Marina Luzanskaya



MTC-00027769

From: 
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am sad to see that Microsoft competitors resort to political 
tricks to win what they lose on the market. Business competition 
should be resolved on the market not in court. I see absolutely 
nothing wrong with Microsoft business competitive tactics. People in 
Microsoft work like crazy and nobody in the world work as hard as 
they do. Let's not try to destroy the pride of an American business 
success. Otherwise, see what's happening to Auto industry.
    We are losing the war on automotive. Aerospace, barely. Software 
is our last frontier and we are still maintaining the leadership 
status. We need the leader, the vision and more importantly, the 
pride.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00027771

From: candacehawthorne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:43am
Subject: Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I feel the settlement is fair and should be finalized as soon as 
possible. The Democrats are leading the march against Microsoft and 
I feel they are being over zealous and greedy. Microsoft has allot 
of cash and this suit opens the door for the leaches to come out.
    Microsoft has won based on having better products, not how they 
were marketed or how business practices were handled. Netscape makes 
a sub standard product and always has. Computer users know what's 
out on the net to download and try and they do. Ninety percent of 
them choose Microsoft for ease of use, updates and great 
functionality. Please get the other nine states off of Microsoft's 
back. It's unAmeican and anit business to let the fleecing of 
Microsoft continue. AOL, SUNW and ORCL will have to compete on their 
own merits and quality of products just like Microsoft does 
everyday.
    Microsoft has tons of competition just like everyone else. 
Microsoft is a LEGAL MONOPOLY. Please wrap this which hunt up and 
put an end to it. This is not helping the economy or American 
business.
    Sincerely,
    Candace Hawthorne
    Metairie, LA 70001



MTC-00027772

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Instead of praising a company such as Microsoft and Mr. Bill 
Gates for giving us the technology they have; there are envious and 
greedy companies that are always filing lawsuits because they are 
not as clever.
    God Bless Microsoft.
    Vickie Sheer

[[Page 28113]]



MTC-00027773

From: Edward Hejtmanek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    to whom it may concern,
    I am in the eighth grade and have been assigned to learn all 
that I can about the Microsoft cases, the current one and the one 
that started in the 1990?s. I typically sympathize with big 
companies and I am an avid user of Internet Explorer. I believe that 
if the states want to settle out of court, as they did in the first 
case, then that is a perfectly acceptable alternative and therefore 
the older case was settled fairly.
    The new case of AOL-Time Warner and nine states versus 
Microsoft, is deserved on Microsoft's side. They used anti-
competitive business practices to get over the Netscape Navigator. 
But the question is really is it a better system? If it is then it 
should have more of the browser market and deserves it. For example, 
I recently heard that AOL uses the Explorer as it's default for when 
you join. Why would they do that when they have their own browser, 
unless it is inferior to the Internet Explorer. So if it is a 
superior browser why are they taking them to court, they want 
Microsoft to not bundle the browser with the operating system? Fine, 
they won?t need to if it is a better system they will have the same, 
or more of the market. As John D. Rockefeller incorrectly said 
?Combination [monopoly] is necessary.?
    Edward Hejtmanek



MTC-00027774

From: Rick Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a professional consultant who makes a living developing and 
implementing Microsoft based solutions for my clients I have to say 
that having a single, standardized browser is actually in the best 
monetary interest of my clients for the simple reason that they 
don't have to pay me to develop and test an Internet based solution 
across multiple, incompatible browsers.
    A browser is similar to a TV--everyone agrees on the 
frequencies (standards) and then vendors produce products to take 
advantage of the standards. . . and, like it or not, since version 
4.0, Microsoft has created the best browser on the market. So I 
think Microsoft actually did everyone a favor by making a superior 
product available for free.
    Additionally, if you go back and read some PC Week (now eWeek) 
articles from ``96 & ``97 you'll see that Netscape was 
planning on adding operating system features to Netscape in a bid to 
increase its functionality. Microsoft had a dominant position in the 
desktop O/S market and needed a browser. Netscape had a dominate 
browser and needed an O/S. IBM, Novell and Apple had tried 
unsuccessfully for years to supplant Microsoft and failed--and 
believe me, as one who lived through it as a professional, it was 
due to the inadequacies of their products and not Microsoft's 
``strong armed tactics''. At this point common sense 
should prevail and show that Microsoft only needed a good browser to 
send Netscape to the scrap head of software history--and that's 
just what happened.
    This case has been a waste of taxpayer's money to the sole 
benefit of Sun and Oracle. As a tax payer I'd like to know why my 
money is being used to promote their agenda instead of letting the 
market speak for itself--as it clearly has.
    I know Microsoft has been found guilty and I disagree with the 
arguments used to reach the conclusion as they are technically 
inaccurate... but that'' s now water under the bridge.
    So I urge you to please accept this settlement, quit wasting my 
money, and get on to prosecuting real criminals.
    Sincerely,
    Rick Davis
    President
    Davis Computing, Inc.



MTC-00027775

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 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,
    Michelle Schlatre
    7605 Westgate Blvd
    Austin, TX 78745



MTC-00027776

From: Morris Richards
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Morris Richards
8605 East Mc Kinley Street
Scottsdale, Az 85257-4527
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious 
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Morris W. Richards



MTC-00027777

From: Lawrence, Mark
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the Settlement as it is right now is a farce! 
Microsoft needs to answer for the crimes committed.
    Mark Lawrence
    Hospital Billing Clerk
    Human Resources Health Center
    Tel: (305) 638-6661 ext. 3060
    Fax: (305) 638-6856
    mailto:[email protected]
    <>



MTC-00027778

From: Scott Dawes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:46am
Subject: Tunney Act; 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. While many technologically astute industry 
insiders have harmoniously raised their voice in Anti-Microsoft 
fervor, the consumer has been largely unheard and is at risk of 
great harm by the lawsuit and the Proposed Final Judgment in United 
States v. Microsoft. I assert that the Proposed Final Judgment is 
not in the public interest.
    In the days of Windows 3.1 and early in the era of Windows 95, 
Compaq Computers and a few other computer manufacturers loaded their 
own Graphical User Interface (GUI) on their DOS/Windows PCs. It was 
a disaster. Customers had to learn how to use each unique GUI. 
Manufacturers GUIs were designed to take over the computer desktop 
and were resilient to novice users attempts at removal or 
deactivation.
    If there were other computers in the home or office, or at home 
versus at work or school, customers were confused and frustrated.
    The manufacturers GUIs were typically poorly designed as opposed 
to the Windows

[[Page 28114]]

GUI, which had been thoroughly researched and designed. In addition 
to poor aesthetic design, the third party GUIs were prone to be 
buggy, exasperating hardware and software compatibility issues. 
Computer retailers and sales people had to spend a great deal of 
time at their own expense deactivating those GUIs. This was 
necessary in order to minimize product returns by frustrated 
consumers.
    Even in those early days of Windows, the Windows 3.1 GUI was a 
vast improvement over the naked DOS environment or the Manufacturers 
GUI. The arrival of Windows 3.1 prompted an explosion of business in 
the computer industry. When CPM was young and DOS was new, we had to 
pay hundreds of dollars for even the poorest quality menial desktop 
application software. The industry had not caught on to the notion 
that software for consumers should be designed to the consumers 
liking and needs.
    The pre-Windows computer industry had not been exposed to 
significant competition and we the consumers paid excessive prices 
for computer hardware, software and related services as a result. 
The software we got was generally overpriced and seldom performed as 
promised.
    When Microsoft entered the OS and application arena, things 
began to change. Suddenly there was a savvy competitor on the scene 
who listened to their customers. Microsoft delivered applications 
that fit our needs at prices we could afford. Owning a computer no 
longer required a consumer to be hamstrung by software vendors and 
technicians who previously demanded exorbitant prices while failing 
to deliver promised results. Thanks to Microsoft, the time-honored 
notion of striving to deliver value and service collided headlong 
with an aloof industry formerly oblivious to such a precept.
    Since Microsoft has entered the arena, the industry, though 
begrudgingly, has matured. Companies today must deliver as promised 
and at fair prices in order to survive. Though many were forced to 
become better companies as a result of Microsoft competition, the 
carping from carpetbaggers in the industry has continued 
unceasingly. With Microsoft Windows, a customer can take a new 
computer home or to the office and with no prior knowledge of 
computers, can be enjoying the fruits of the technology age within 
hours if not minutes. I challenge any novice to do the same with a 
UNIX or LINUX computer, an exercise that I propose every person 
involved in United States v. Microsoft should undertake. The 
exercise would quickly reveal that it is the comparative superiority 
of the Windows product and not trade practice that is responsible 
for Microsoft's phenomenal success. Microsoft has put the consumer 
in the drivers seat and the industry resents that fact.
    The growth of the computer industry has outstripped the capacity 
of business legal jurisprudence. The Justice Department lawsuit 
against Microsoft has attempted to reconcile emerging intricacies of 
an industry that did not exist when the anti-trust laws were 
written. The Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft, 
in it's attempt to punish Microsoft, risks punishing the consumer 
instead. It is apparent that the governments suit against Microsoft 
has persisted only as a result of a massive lobbying effort on the 
part of bitter competitors who were for the most part striped of 
their technologically tyrannical power over consumers.
    Please do not return us to the dark ages by allowing equipment 
manufacturers to alter the functionality of the Windows desktop. 
Please do not discourage Microsoft from integrating intrinsic 
elements of business and personal computing into a single cohesive 
operating system. These things not only should be engineered and 
delivered by a single source, but must be delivered by a single 
source if computing is to continue to evolve. And lastly, please do 
not interfere with the computer users ability to send and receive 
spreadsheets, word processing documents and email documents 
seamlessly to other associates across the nation and around the 
world. As such would be the effect of placing inferior products at 
an artificial advantage by crippling Microsoft's ability to lead the 
technology in the consumers direction.
    The problems you strive to resolve in your Proposed Final 
Judgment are a noble and justifiable cause, but are tantamount in 
this case, to burning the forest to prevent forest fires. The 
solution to all of the problems you embrace must be addressed in new 
laws and mandated standards designed to accomplish for all computer 
users what Microsoft has succeeded in providing for their customers. 
That is standardization of how the computer is used and how business 
and personal files and information are shared. In the vacuum born of 
legislative inaction, Microsoft has been forced to undertake and has 
accomplished this extraordinary task for their customers in spite of 
being confronted with an unwilling industry and a hostile 
government.
    I beseech you to invoke whatever means are available and 
necessary to abate any potentially harmful effects against Microsoft 
in the Proposed Final Judgment or the Amended Proposed Final 
Judgment.
    Failure to do so will ultimately and necessarily result in 
greater harm to the public whom you seek to protect.
    Finally, aggressive anti-Microsoft email campaigns by embittered 
industry insiders are hereby rebuked and as such are not likely 
representative of the public or of public interests. Such campaigns 
are likely to be an exploitation of the justice system for purposes 
of financial gain and for resolution of personal grievances. I 
beseech you to consider and weigh them as such.
    Respectfully,
    Scott Dawes, Tulare, California, Computer user since 1979



MTC-00027779

From: Aaronson, AM (Alan)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 10:46am
Subject: Letter re Microsoft Settlement
<>
Alan Aaronson
Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals LLC
5 Livingstone Avenue
Dobbs Ferry, New York 10522-3407
    This message, including attached files, is confidential and 
intended for the addressees only. Any unauthorized use, 
dissemination of the information, or copying of this message is 
prohibited. If you receive a message not being the addressee, please 
notify the sender by returning the e-mail immediately and delete the 
message.
January 26,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in the chemical industry and use Microsoft's Windows on a 
daily basis. From my experience and in my opinion, Microsoft's 
Windows has become the standard operating system for business and 
personal computing.
    The most reasonable choice for the Justice Department is to 
conclude the antitrust lawsuit with Microsoft and allow them to 
return to business with the terms of the settlement having been 
enacted. The government has aggressively sought to break-up 
Microsoft over the past three years. This offensive from the Justice 
Department has diverted attention from other ways of dealing with 
Microsoft's excessive tactics-- including strong-arming 
competitors--that I have read about in the media.
    I am pleased a settlement has finally been reached. As I 
understand them, the terms of the settlement require Microsoft to 
deal more fairly with competitors and not to retaliate in any way 
against vendors who want to use competitors'' software instead 
of Microsoft's. I feel that the terms Microsoft has agreed to serves 
their best interests at this time, and gives the competition 
reasonable means by which to win consumer loyalty.
    The best action the Department of Justice can take is to end 
this onslaught against Microsoft for being very good at what they 
do. I think the best is yet to come from Microsoft, and this 
country's economic rise. I seriously urge the Department of Justice 
to accept the terms of the November settlement with Microsoft.
    This opinions expressed in this letter are my own and are not 
meant to represent those of my employer.
    Sincerely,
    Alan Aaronson



MTC-00027780

From: Bill Herring
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:47am
Subject: Proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft
    Dear Sirs and Mesdames:
    I do indeed believe that Microsoft has in some cases been an 
overbearing competitor, and probably should be brought in line, but 
as a user of Microsoft products, I do not believe that Microsoft 
should be prevented from providing the software that we as a country 
have profited from.
    I have used Microsoft program products for years as well as 
software from other producers. I find that Microsoft sets a standard 
that their competitors sometimes find it hard to meet. As a user, I 
value that they produce programs and systems that are

[[Page 28115]]

rich in function, of high quality, and are sold at a price that I 
can afford.
    The fact that they have become a de facto standard, and that I 
can use their office products and exchange information with others 
without running into compatibility problems is also important to me, 
and is a major factor in my businiss use of their products.
    By all means hold them to correct behaviour, but punitive 
actions that lessen their ability to meet their customers needs 
would be contrary to good business practice, and, I think, would 
cost us dearly as a nation and as an economy.
    Thank you for your attention,
    William L. Herring
    System Administrator
    Strategic Power Systems, Inc.
    11301 Carmel Commons blvd,
    Charlotte, NC 28226



MTC-00027781

From: Dean Stelow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please proceed with the settlement as it currently exists. Its 
fair and has the added benefit of helping our kids in school get 
modern computers and software.
    Thankyou,
    dean stelow
    nordev inc



MTC-00027782

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:46am
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,
    John Woolley
    2324 Dolores Court
    Pinole, CA 94564-1804



MTC-00027783

From: James Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:49am
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. The only 
people this settlement will hurt is the end-users whether they are 
home users or corporate users.
    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 
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. I 
don?t know that I have a good solution either the only thing that I 
hope is that we are truly given a choice of operating systems on a 
PC and not have to pay for something we don?t want.
    Thank you,
    James Adams
    Network Manager
    Cashco, Inc.
    607 W. 15th
    Ellsworth, KS 67439
    Phone: 785-472-4461 Ext. 182
    Fax: 785-472-8543



MTC-00027785

From: Ron Coveney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    The Microsoft Settlement is not enough but a break-up is by far 
worse. What is needed is that they be regulated as a legal monopoly. 
This gives the government the ability to respond as needed when 
issues arise. Further, they could reduce the MS selling prices which 
has been a sticking spot. With what they pay out in dividends to 
still have over $35 billion dollar in cash on hand shows they are 
over charging. Again break-up is not an option. The problem with the 
industry was; all the different operating systems prior to DOS and 
making all their code public just helps hackers. Yes other companies 
need access to the code but it needs to be controlled and secure, 
thus regulation.
    Ron Coveney



MTC-00027786

From: mark nesky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I firmly believe that Microsoft is a monopoly, and I hope they 
are prosecuted.
    Microsoft is a colossal company, and as a consumer, I feel like 
their monopoly is much more far-reaching than just their web 
browser, Internet Explorer. And I am not referring to their flawed 
implementation of Java or the control they exert over computer 
manufacturers ability to configure the machines they sell. I am 
referring to their overall market pervasiveness, that my only choice 
for word processing and spreadsheet software is Microsofts Office 
program. And that I need to use the Microsoft Windows operating 
system to be compatible with the network where I am employed. There 
are alternative software programs to those offered by Microsoft, but 
often they are harder to find and less likely to be fully compatible 
with the software used by colleagues.
    I believe a poignant example of their monopoly is the way they 
can intentionally make older versions of their software 
incompatible. What I mean is, when a few people upgrade to the 
newest version of a Microsoft product, their colleges must also 
upgrade if they want to be able to share files. Thus I could have a 
perfectly good piece of Microsoft software that serves my needs as 
is, yet be forced to pay money to Microsoft in order to maintain 
compatibility. THEY ARE BREAKING SOFTWARE I OWN, SOFTWARE THAT ONCE 
WORKED FINE.
    A friend of mine who is a Linux programmer explained how 
Microsoft broke Excel files. My friend was writing a program that 
read in Excel files for use in an alternate spreadsheet program that 
runs on Linux. His study of two versions of the file format showed 
them to be exactly the same except a small tag in the beginning that 
stated the version of Excel that created the file. Because of this 
tag, older versions of Excel refuse to open the file, even though 
the file is fully compatible. Thus Microsoft used the file format to 
force Excel users to upgrade, even though the new file format is 
identical except for this tag!
    A well-designed file format should transcend software versions. 
When a new feature is added to the file format, that feature can be 
tagged with a name when it is used. Thus a file that does not 
require the new feature will be identical to the old file format, 
and a file that does use the new feature can mostly be read by older 
software, which can read everything except the part with the new 
feature, which it will ignore. The practice of intentionally 
breaking older files is immoral. But since there are few 
alternatives to Microsoft software, people must buy and keep buying 
it.
    Microsofts new subscription based business model is simply 
making their shady forced upgrades explicit. As described above, 
they are forcing people to upgrade to new versions by making older 
version incompatible. But with a subscription model, they will force 
us to upgrade because our

[[Page 28116]]

license has run out. The only reason they could get away with such 
atrocity is because they are a monopoly! From a prosecution point of 
view, perhaps the browser war with Netscape is a more clear-cut 
example of Microsofts monopoly. With Internet Explorer preinstalled 
and available in the start bar, the start menu, and on the desktop, 
it is clear that Microsoft is leveraging their operating system to 
promote their web browser. And with such a huge user base viewing 
the web through the Microsoft browser, Microsoft can sell default 
bookmarks to companies and promote its own wares through bookmarks 
and the default home page, furthering its monopoly.
    Microsoft is so big and influential, that I worry that they will 
buy and cheat their way out of prosecution. I bet that their will be 
a disproportionate amount of pro-Microsoft email sent to the DOJ 
because Microsoft will be encouraging all its employees to flood 
this email address with praise. Microsoft will stoop that low, and 
if opportunity presents, much lower. If Microsoft is not prosecuted 
harshly, I fear the situation will worsen. They will get away with 
more and more, and their size and influence will grow. If their 
influence grows any more, there may not be an opportunity to 
prosecute again.
    Their potential to influence has grown tremendously, especially 
now that they have bought NBC. I have not yet seen them abuse this 
power, but that is probably because I do not watch TV. But if 
Microsoft continues to grow, and even the news is delivered with a 
pro-Microsoft slant, there may be no hope for competition in the 
future. I believe that Microsoft has grown out of hand, and I really 
hope the government can stop this problem before it gets too late.
    One proposed solution I heard in the continuing coverage of the 
trial was to break Microsoft into several smaller companies. Such a 
split might separate the operating system from other software 
programs. I believe such a split will be a good step in the right 
direction. But I hope that is not the only penalty imposed on 
Microsoft. Another part of the solution should be requiring 
Microsoft to standardize and make available their file formats and 
interfaces. All communication between Microsoft programs, across 
networks, and between programs and the operating system should be 
well documented. In addition, this documentation should be made 
available well in advance of the software that makes use of it, so 
companies can make their alternative products compatible the moment 
the Microsoft programs hit the shelves. If the alternative software 
is fully compatible, then I believe it will have a much better 
chance of surviving. And I think that increased compatibility will 
benefit the software world in general. Standardized interfaces and 
file formats will make sharing file across versions, platforms, and 
vendors much more reliable. There will be much more competition and 
innovation.
    Recently Microsoft proposed a settlement to the case brought 
against them by the states. The settlement proposed by Microsoft 
would not help, Microsoft offered to give a large dollar amount of 
their software away to schools. Fortunately, I think that the states 
saw through this ploy. This would not be punishment; this would 
simply be Microsoft furthering its monopoly! Microsoft would have 
extended its user base to many more people. And when these students 
left school, they would expect Microsoft software in the work place, 
because that is all they will have known!
    If Microsoft escapes prosecution, it will only be because they 
are so big and influential. How ironic. Please do not let this 
happen!
    If I sound biased, it is because I feel like I have been forced 
to use Microsoft products. There is little choice. And the choice 
there is, is obscured by a lack of money for marketing. When I 
mention alternative operating systems like BeOS (which recently went 
under) people dont know what I am talking about. Likewise, few 
people have heard of other office vendors. Some of the alternative 
programs are better and cheaper, yet they go on unnoticed. I am 
strongly opposed to Microsofts monopoly, but I want to be clear that 
I do not work for any competitor. Neither my employer nor myself 
stand to benefit directly from the prosecution of Microsoft. But I 
believe the whole United States will benefit if this monopoly is 
stopped.
    Thank you for giving me the chance to express my opinion.
    I hope that justice is performed fairly. And I hope the outcome 
is determined by what would be best for this country and its people.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Nesky



MTC-00027787

From: Dan Rosenthal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a tough competitor primarily because it's products 
are functional and always improving. The reliability and 
compatibility of their products has brought order to a chaotic 
software market.
    Standards are necessary in every market: the standard distance 
between tracks beneath railway cars allows trains to cross our 
country regardless of the rail provider. The standard number of 
volts and the shape of outlet receptacles allows appliances to be 
used safely regardless of the corporation that builds them or that 
generates the electricity. (This is been standard in-country, but 
not world-wide, causing a need for special plugs when traveling).
    Microsoft is setting national and international standards 
because it manufactures customer-preferred products. Customers have 
voted for Microsoft by using and purchasing their software. We 
should encourage such an innovative company...not penalize it for 
it's success.
    Dan Rosenthal
    Columbus, Georgia



MTC-00027788

From: Jim Worthington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I believe strongly that the penalties for Microsoft's antitrust 
misbehavior need to be sufficient to strongly discourage such 
behavior in the future. Microsoft's competitors have been seriously 
wronged by its illegal tactics. Microsoft does not appear to believe 
it has done anything wrong despite rulings to the contrary and 
continues to act in similar anti-competitive ways.
    It is important to restraint the company's behavior in order to 
create a competitive software environment. I hope that you will rule 
accordingly.
    Sincerely,
    James M. Worthington
    President
    WorthSoft, Inc.



MTC-00027789

From: pixel fairy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    my comments have two focuses. I'm certain you have already read 
much of why the proposed remedy will have little effect on the 
practices. i have found nothing in the proposed remedy to repair the 
damage and restore the market place. my first concern is what 
Microsoft hides and from whom. while implementation is intellectual 
property, the apis, protocols, and formats should now be publicly 
available for reasons described below. ive also included a comment 
about the scope of the settlement.
    in section III.I the formats, apis, and protocols need to be 
publicly available, this is the only way to really lower the barrier 
of entry to anyone who wants to make compatible software, and is 
especially important to developers of free software. in its current 
form, Microsoft can exclude certain parties such as free software 
developers. also section III.D mentions MSDN as a delivery channel. 
this would force developers to sign up for Microsoft services in 
order to obtain the information. the information should be mirrored 
by at least one independent third party. section III.J.2 is 
especially dangerous as discussed below.
    because Microsoft has illegally dominated the desktop operating 
systems market, competitors should now be able to make thier 
software compatible at the api level, which is why the operating 
systems api needs to be public knowledge so that third party 
implementations (win32 emulators, compatibility layers, etc) can be 
developed, removing that barrier of entry. this is very important as 
windows compatibility has become essential for any commercial 
desktop software to survive or operating system to be viable to a 
large market.
    any deviance from the published api should be carefully 
appraised, and documented and fixed in timely manner. a hard 
deadline should be set for at least documenting any error in 
Microsoft's implementation to allow outside developers to know about 
and work around such.
    III.J.1 can be abused, if left in the settlement should be 
watched very carefully by the TC, but preferably taken out. 
implementations of well designed security protocols are just as 
effective if the implementation let alone the api is exposed. this 
clause could easily be used by Microsoft

[[Page 28117]]

to continue to use secret interfaces in thier products.
    III.J.2 need to be taken out as it is very dangerous. it could 
easily be abused. Microsoft should not be able to set the standards 
on who can access thier api documentations for the reason set above 
and because this clearly allows Microsoft to decide who can and can 
not be privy to the information. Any organization or individual that 
Microsoft deems a credible threat would be denied access to the 
information, or at least delayed until it the protocol was changed. 
this was probably included by Microsoft lawyers as a way to counter 
the threat of free software or open source developers and has no 
value in restoring competition or redressing the damages done. 
Microsoft should only be allowed to use thier patents or copyrights 
defensively and this restriction should also extend to any companies 
owned by Microsoft. This idea is discussed by the gnu project at 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html
    Microsoft has recently acquired some of the ip regarding opengl 
from sgi. opengl is an open 3d graphics library used on many 
platforms including windows. its in competition with Microsoft 
direct 3d which only runs on windows. if Microsoft used this to 
inhibit development of opengl or tie it to windows directly or 
indirectly it would have a horrible effect on the computer graphics 
industry.
    The settlement only applies to desktop software. microsoft is 
also in other bussiness and has other software departments that are 
related, and thus the settlement should apply to all of the 
corporations software.



MTC-00027790

From: Tacke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C.
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    I believe the proposed settlement should be approved by the 
Department of Justice.
    I have thought from the outset of this litigation, and continue 
to believe, that this action by the government was unwarranted and 
motivated by political interests led by Sun Microsystems and Oracle. 
The nine states objecting to this settlement are also aligned with 
these political interests. More recently, AOL Time Warner, a 
significant Microsoft competitor, has piled on.
    To alter this proposed settlement as advocated by its opponents 
would do nothing but weaken Microsoft against these powerful rivals. 
And, their gains would not have been as a result of their 
innovation, vision, or management skills, it would be because of 
unwarranted government intervention.
    Microsoft's activities have not harmed consumers. To the 
contrary, consumers and the US economy have benefited enormously 
from Microsoft's innovation and persistence. To alter the proposed 
settlement with the result of weakening Microsoft against its 
competitors would harm consumers.
    This litigation has been a waste of taxpayers'' money.
    Approve the settlement and let the free market system work.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Stephen P. Tacke
    4943 Sandestin Drive
    Dallas, Texas 75287
    CC:'Steve Tacke''



MTC-00027791

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 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,
    Randall Stogentin
    4013 W. Ogle St.
    Dixon, IL 61021



MTC-00027792

From: Judy Thornburg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the whole law suit was frivolous from the very beginning. 
This country is about competition and being innovative. If a company 
falls behind is is probably do to the lack of the above two things.
    I use a Apple computer. A couple of years ago I had a Permorma 
5215CD, with an older operating system, it got so I could not get 
Netscape product to work on it, Microsoft Explorer did, so when I 
purchased an iMac I went to the Microsoft product because it worked 
on my older computer! Government needs to keep its hand out of the 
running of business in this country.
    Judy Thornburg



MTC-00027793

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:58am
Subject: The proposed MS Antitrust Settlement is INADEQUATE!
    The current proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement is 
completely inadequate to address the abuse of monopoly power that 
Microsoft has perpetrated in the past decade. In particular, I feel 
that the only way to redress this grievence, and open the market to 
competition is to open the Microsoft APIs and protocols, and to 
protect all OEMs from microsoft retaliation for shipping systems 
with competing operating systems.
    The open API clause in the existing agreement is flawed on 
several counts:
    - The term ``API'' is defined so narrowly that several 
important protocols and platforms are not included at all. The most 
important of these are the MS Office document formats, and the .NET 
platform.
    - The settlement requires Microsoft to release API documentation 
but it prohibits competitors from using this documentation to help 
make their operating systems compatible with Windows. So, what 
exactly is the point of releasing the APIs, and how would this 
distinction be enforced?
    - MS is not required to release the APIs and documentation 
before the products are released. This means that competitors are 
constantly playing catchup, and microsoft can effectively change the 
rules at will to deliberately destroy compatibility with competing 
products. I would reccomend that the APIs and documentation be 
publically published, without restriction, at least 3 months prior 
to the release of any product using those APIs.
    On the question of OEMs, the settlement allows microsoft to 
continue discriminating against small ``white box'' OEMs 
that account for a large proportion of system sales. In my opinion, 
all OEM sales should clearly break out the cost of the operating 
system from the cost of the hardware, service, etc.
    Please do not let this settlement go forward.
    Respectfully,
    Eric George
    Colorado Springs, CO



MTC-00027794

From: Pradipkumar Ramanlal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This comment urges the presiding judge to reject the proposed 
settlement.
    Little in the proposed settlement between ``The 
Government'' and ``Microsoft'' addresses one of the 
most perverse actions that Microsoft can take to
    (1) impede competition,
    (2) further strengthen its windows monopoly,
    (3) stifle innovation and
    (4) harm the consumer
    The issue pertains to Microsoft's ability to bundle software. 
Microsoft has steadfastly maintained there should be (little or) no 
restriction on its ability to ``innovate'' (i.e., to add 
additional features to the Windows Operating System like Internet 
Explorer and Windows Media Player).
    Unless the issue of bundling is adequately addressed is any 
settlement, the following scenario will almost certainly prevail:
    Innovators generally have a strong interest to expend large 
amounts of resources (money and talent) to create middleware because 
of the hugh market that exists and the potential for windfall 
profits if successful.
    But innovators are cognizant of the fact that the risk-rewards 
structure is extreme: winner-take-all.
    Innovators are also cognizant of the fact that there is a 
significant advantage to being first-to-market.
    Thus success demands aggressive competition and a quick outlay 
of large

[[Page 28118]]

amounts of resources. It is just such innovation and tactics that 
brought about technologies of significant value to consumers: the 
browser (by Netscape) and the streaming audio/video (by 
Realnetworks).
    It a competitive system, innovators are willing to take hugh 
risks if the potential for hugh rewards exists.
    But Micorosoft, by using its monopoly power, has successfully 
decoupled the rewards from the risk. It has found a way to lay claim 
on the reward following its discovery, while assigning the costs 
associated with unearthing this discovery to the original innovator.
    How is this possible?
    A big part of the innovative process is to uncover the product 
or service consumers demand most. To that end, innovators expend 
valuable resources on inventing all kinds of products and services 
since initially it is unclear which one will ``click'' 
with consumers.
    Microsoft has simply to sit back and let all the innovators in 
the market do their creative work and expend their resources. Once 
the dust has settled, and the winning product or service is 
revealed, Microsoft steps in and creates a product to compete solely 
with this winning product. In a competitive system, such a strategy 
would be futile lacking the ``first-to-market'' advantage. 
But not so for an entrenched monolpolist.
    By bundling its competing version of the winning middleware to 
the operating system, Microsoft has the benefit of offering a 
winning product without having incurred the true expense incurred in 
uncovering this winning product, which is the sum of all the 
resources spent by all innovators in total in uncovering this 
product (most of them of course unsuccessfully).
    Traditionally, Microsoft has bundled this winning software into 
the operating system so that consumers have the perception that they 
get it for free. What is being done is that Microsoft garnishes the 
product from the innovator and passes it on to the consumer at no 
charge.
    Why shouldn't the govenrment be happy if the consumer gets 
something for nothing? First, it stifles further innovation since 
innovators now understanding there are no rewards to taking hugh 
risks.
    Second, with more and more winning middleware products added to 
the operating system, the Windows monopoly becomes further 
entrenched at a disproportionately low cost to Microsoft. Third, 
with all future innovators deterred from the market, consumers must 
rely soley on the innovative power of the monoplist.
    Of course, there is the proposed remedy that Microsoft offer 
different versions of the operating system at different prices to 
afford the winning middleware innovator the opportunity to profit.
    This remedy is vastly subject to manipulation by Microsoft 
because the costs and revenues are decoupled.
    Costs are determined by the cumulative labor expenses of the 
industry as a whole and the success likelihood of any one firm, 
while revenues are determined by whatever Microsoft sees fit to set 
the price differential between the two versions of the operating 
system, one with and the other without the middleware.
    Proposed price differentials based on the length of code are 
also subject to manipulation given that Microsoft can make ite base-
version operating system any length is chooses.
    These is also the issue of when the APIs are made available to 
the outside innovator and microsoft internal developers for software 
upgrades of this winning middleware. They must be made available at 
the same time.
    Of course, microsoft is apt to claim in future, as it has in the 
past, that the added winning middleware is now an 
``integral'' part of the operating system and therefore 
the playing field with respect to API disclosures will not be level.
    The only remedy to ensure future innovation persists is if 
Microsoft competes on the same terms as all the other innovators in 
generating new and winning middleware.
    In the least disruptive way to microsoft, this can best be 
accomplished by requiring microsoft to form a wholly owned 
subsidiary with whom microsoft has a public and transparent arms-
length relationship on the same terms offered to all competitors 
producing bona-fide competing middleware.
    Sincerely,
    Pradipkumar Ramanlal
    Associate Professor of Finance
    University of Central Flroida
    Orlando, Florida



MTC-00027795

From: Burton W. Phelps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please read the attached letter.
    Burton W. Phelps
    Support the NFA. E-mail your Congressional Representatives and 
support the NFA budget and ask for more personnel to do the job.
    Go to www.mrsmith.com for Congressional e-mail addresses.
    1213 Lorene Drive, Pasadena, Maryland 21122-4895
    410-437-1990 Fax 410-360-7043 E-mail:
    [email protected]
    January 28, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a Microsoft supporter, it is essential that I show my support 
for the settlement but also for the company's return to developing 
new products. Microsoft has done a lot for the technology industry 
and is responsible for leading the way in software development. They 
should not be chastised for coming up with the most innovative ideas 
and the best products. In this light, Microsoft is the embodiment of 
the American dream to achieve success. We should embrace this 
accomplishment instead of discouraging it. This celebration of 
success can begin with the end of the Microsoft Antitrust case.
    Three years have passed since the beginning of this case and it 
has taken the Department of Justice and Microsoft too long to 
reconcile differences. I am confident that the terms of the 
settlement are a result of careful analysis that will best serve the 
interest of all entities involved. First, Microsoft has agreed not 
to retaliate against those that directly compete with Microsoft as 
well as those who support those competitors. In addition, Microsoft 
has agreed to grant computer makers the right to remove consumer 
access to features of Windows and instead replace those features 
with access to non-Microsoft software programs. Furthermore, 
Microsoft has agreed not to enter into any agreements that will 
obligate any third-party to exclusively endorse any Windows 
technology.
    As you can see, the Department of Justice has taken extreme care 
to resolve this case to the best of its ability. The terms involved 
are reasonable and fair in the eyes of the public, the State, the IT 
industry as well as the economy. Clearly, the best course of action 
to take is to end the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    President



MTC-00027796

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:00am
Subject: The Honorable Department of Justice:
    The Honorable Department of Justice:
    I would like to express my opinions regarding the Microsoft 
case. Since all the evidence points to the fact that Microsoft was 
guilty, why not let them pay their fine and the world could back to 
business. The Attorney Generals of the dissenting States should look 
at the problems in their own backayrds, instead of prolonging this 
issue. Most States these days have budget deficits, so what is the 
benefit of directing additional time and resources to this matter. 
I'm sure if you polled most consumers, myself included, they would 
not feel terribly slighted by the Microsoft actions. If I were due 
compensation, I would donate the money to Homeland Security, which 
is something really important!
    Sincerely,
    J. R. Kot Jr.



MTC-00027797

From: Andymo13
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an American citizen having watched this case go on and on for 
far too many years at the urging of Microsoft's primary competitors, 
it is time it is put to bed. The settlement is fair and reasonable.
    While the competitors may still be complaining, there has never 
been any proof that consumers have been harmed in any way. Let's 
stay focused on the consumer and encourage big corporate tech 
companies to do so as well. They and all of us would be better 
served by better products, than by more law suits.
    Approve the settlement. Let Microsoft get back to doing what it 
does best, serving their customers.



MTC-00027798

From: Jeffrey S. Smith

[[Page 28119]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have been watching the Antitrust Suit that was brought against 
Microsoft since it was filed with great intrigue. Since public 
opinion has been welcomed, I would like to give my input.
    I have worked in the Electronic Security Industry for the better 
part of 23 years. The last 7 years I have worked for a Software 
Development Company that specializes in Computer Software and 
Hardware for the Electronic Security Industry. Until recently, we 
did not develop or use any of the Microsoft Operating Systems for 
development of our software. We have always purchased the computer 
from companies like Everex, Premio, Digital, Compaq, etc. Until the 
Antitrust charges were filed, we were forced to buy Windows 
Operating systems along with the machines. Bare in mind, we never 
ordered the hardware with even a hard drive in them, but we were 
forced to buy the operating system because as I was told by all of 
the companies we purchased from, ?That the agreement that they have 
with Microsoft states that they have to sell a Microsoft Operating 
System with every computer sold?. 4 or 5 years in a row, we would 
end up donating 200 to 300 new operating systems to some local 
vocational schools since we could not resell them, as they were OEM 
versions of Windows. Obviously, this is just one of many scenarios 
that Microsoft seemed to have created and fostered into the current 
situation. I feel that scenarios like this are why the DOJ did the 
right thing in bringing the Suit against Microsoft. Obviously, 
scenarios like this are clearly anti-competitive and a win/win 
situation for Microsoft. They get to make a sale even though us and 
other companies had no intention of using their Operating System. 
Hardly seems like Freedom To Innovate as Microsoft has said.
    In my opinion, they should not be broken up. I feel that more 
damage would come as a result if they were, economically as well as 
technology wise. However, I feel the penalties need to be much 
stiffer than what is proposed currently for the settlement. The 
financial penalties are not nearly stiff enough. They should not be 
allowed to give computers to schools as part of the settlement since 
this will obviously hurt Apple with their excellent school program 
that until now Microsoft has not really cared about. Possibly 
donations to charities or other worthwhile causes would be good as 
part of the settlement. Microsoft and other companies need to 
remember this case as a reminder of how not to do business. The only 
way to do that is to hit them in the wallet and possibly some sort 
of log term Federal oversight for a few years to keep them honest. 
(If that is possible).
    I truly feel Microsoft is an amazing company and a lot of the 
Technology that we have at our fingertips is thanks to them. They 
should have the Freedom to Innovate, putting a stranglehold on the 
bulk of the Technology Industry is not Freedom. There truly is no 
other game in town currently as far as the technology goes. However, 
if Microsoft would have been allowed to continue several years ago, 
there would never be a chance for any other company to even attempt 
to do what Microsoft has done. If things are done right in the 
settlement, maybe there will be some new players in the game.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey S. Smith
    Operations Manager
    Bold Technologies Ltd.
    (847) 625-7700 voice
    (847) 625-5500 fax
    A Bold Group Company
    Chicago London Rotterdam
    www.boldgroup.com



MTC-00027799

From: Brian Filipiak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:57am
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    Hello,
    I am writing to let you know that I feel the proposed settlement 
is inadequate in many respects, specifically with regards to 
proposed remedies regarding what Microsoft would provide to school 
districts. This would only *enhance* their monopolistic practices, 
not rectify the problems. Please reconsider the actions you have 
proposed, and look to some of the other useful suggestions proposed 
elsewhere.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Filipiak
    Brian Filipiak
    Teacher Education
    313L Porter Building
    Phone: 734.487.7120 x 2645
    Grant Associate
    College of Education
    Eastern Michigan University
    Fax: 734.487.2101



MTC-00027800

From: Hull, Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a customer of Microsoft, I strongly support the proposed 
settlement. I believe that Microsoft products offer excellent value 
and have improved my productivity at my office and my home. Also, as 
a believer in the capitalist system, I am very concerned about harsh 
remedies being imposed on a company which has demonstrated shown 
true entrepreneurial vision. Without the leadership of Microsoft, 
the digital communication system that we function on today might not 
have been achieved.



MTC-00027801

From: Kuzdas.Tommy
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 11:01am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement.''
    Tommy D. Kuzdas
    7205 West Marine Drive
    Milwaukee, WI 53223
    Email: [email protected]
    Dear Sir, as a concerned citizen in the state of Wisconsin I 
have been tracking the Microsoft case with some interest. As a 
consumer I was very, very angry with microsoft for dictating to me 
what software would be loaded on my computer. I am still very angry 
with being forced to accept Internet explorer and other Microsoft 
products as a condition of buying a computer.
    I believe the aggreement that the federal government is trying 
to force on the states is totally unacceptable for the following 
reasons: 1. Microsoft is not forced to admit guilt. Microsoft was 
convicted of being a monopolist and of abusing its power in 
violation of both articles of the Sherman Anti-trust act. This 
conviction was upheld UNANAMOUSLY by a seven judge panel in a 
federal appeals court. In addition the U.S. Supreme Court has turned 
down Microsoft's appeal. Has any defendant convicted of a crime ever 
been able to bargain their way out of a conviction? I find this 
concept to be repugnant and outrageous! Furthermore, Microsoft was 
given every opportunity to change its conduct over the last seven 
years. Microsoft deserves no sympathy! My smpathy is reserved for 
Microsofts victims. Finally if this conviction is overturned the 
ability of the computer industry and of consumers to recover damages 
will be all but destroyed.
    2. Microsoft should have absolutely no say in how they are to be 
policed and regulated. The job of the technicle monitors should be 
to uphold the interests of the public and of the rest of the 
computer industry. Microsoft's interest is in maintaining its 
Monopoly and continueing to strangle the rest of the industry 
through tactics of extortion, exclusive contracts, and product 
tying.
    3. The aggreement should be open ended with regards to time. I 
do not believe that any company over the next five to seven years 
will be able to directly threaten Microsoft's monopoly. A serial 
killer when convicted gets the key thrown away. Microsoft should be 
treated the same. Not withstanding comments later in this letter, I 
feel the aggreement should last at least ten years with the 
provision that if Micosoft violates any part of the aggreement it 
gets extended for another 10 years. Microsoft should also be 
reguired to pay all reasonable costs for required enforcement 
actions.
    4. The aggreement lacks teeth. Microsoft conduct reflects a 
total disreguard and contempt for our justice system. Assessing a 
fine of a million dollars a day or even ten million dollars a day 
means NOTHING to Bill Gates. I believe that Microsoft should be 
required to forfiet their copyrights to ALL of their operating 
systems (DOS versions 1.0--6.0, Windows, Windows 3.0, Windows 
95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows Melenium)if they are ever 
found in contempt for violating the consent decree and that such 
judgement would be final and not subject to appeal. I do not mean 
the government now owns Windows. I mean the copyrights cease to 
exist.
    Windows and DOS becomes freeware availible to be used as 
individual companies and individuals see fit.
    5. Microsoft may argue that such a penalty is too harsh. My 
rebuttle would be to simply point out that based on their past 
behavior strong motivation is required to ensure compliance with the 
consent decree.
    Microsoft needs to stop walking the line, stepping over, then 
becoming good boys

[[Page 28120]]

again when their errors are pointed out. I would recommend that the 
anti-trust compliance officer be given power to disaprove of any 
contracts he believes violates anti-trust law , and that such 
contracts be reported to the justice department. The software 
industry and the federal government should get to decide who fills 
this important post. Microsoft should also be advised that they 
would be expected to obey the consent decree in spirit as well as 
word.
    In conclusion I would like to say the following:
    I believe that Microsoft should be held accountable for 
violating the Sherman Anti-Trust act. I believe that the copyrights 
to all of Micrososft's operating systems should be disolved because 
Microsoft used their copyrights in a manner which violated the 
Sherman Anti Trust Act. This action would be simple, severe (the 
equivilent of a 500 billion dollar fine), and would end Microsoft's 
monopoly power. This punishment would send a strong message to the 
computer industry. (A message I believe the industry wants to hear). 
The computer industry would be able to make competing operating 
systems by decompiling and reverse engineering Windows. This 
punishment would also created the paradign shift which Microsoft 
fears. A shift that I believe the computer industry desparately 
wants and that would have benifitted consumers. A proliferation of 
operating systems based on Windows API's would also creat the ideal 
conditions for Sun Microsystems JAVA programing language. Stripping 
Microsoft of their copyrightsthis would also save the federal 
government the hassle of monitoring Microsoft's corperate conduct.
    I aknowledge that creating such a shift would give Sun 
Microsystems a monopoly of their own. However I believe the owners 
of Sun Microsystems would be very carefull about how they conduct 
bussiness. Microsoft has claimed that anti-trust laws have no place 
in the computer industry because of the pace of inovation. Microsoft 
could not be more wrong. The anti-trust laws are not about 
technology. They are about bussiness ethics and fair play. 
Protecting consumers and small bussinesses from predatory bussiness 
practices. Ethics are universal and transend any bussiness including 
the computer industry.
    I have strong objections to the prevailing philosophy in the 
Federal Court System that companies engaging in anti-competetive 
behavior should not be punished, only restrained. This philosophy 
does nothing to right the wrongs of competitors harmed by illegal 
marketing practices. I would point out that Judge Jackson could have 
sentenced Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer to three years in a federal 
prison and confiscated Microsoft. (I understand that had he done so 
the punishment would have been vacated for being too harsh). 
Congress intended that anti-competitive behavior be punished as 
criminal behavior.
    As a consumer I would very much like to see Sun Microsystems 
vision come to pass. ``Write once, run anywhere!''
    Microsoft must be forced to pay for the manner in which they 
undermined competition based on the merits.
    I ask that the judge presiding over the punishment phase of this 
trial see this letter.
    Respectfully,
    Tommy D. Kuzdas



MTC-00027802

From: Dave Dooling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:06am
Subject: Not tough enough
    Gentlemen:
    As a freelance writer I would like to register my string 
disapproval of the weak remedies proposed in the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. Microsoft has behaved like a corporate thug and has even 
acted as if it was above the law. The supposed side-by-side 
demonstration of two different operating systems in 
court--which turned out to have the results 
altered--should have earned the lawyers time in jail for 
perjury and contempt. As a science writer, I know that the correct 
way to run the test would have been with two identical hard drives 
swapped in and out of the same machine so the test would be a true 
apples-and-apples comparison. It is an example of how Microsoft does 
what it wants. The proposed remedies would leave the field open for 
them to continue taking advantage of the consumer and to prey on 
other businesses. In particular, the proposal to give away software 
and old computers means nothing as far as financial penalties go. 
Microsoft will tout the retail value of packages that actually cost 
them a small percentage to manufacture. They will then have schools 
locked into Microsoft software and have to pay dearly for upgrades 
in the future. The situation is more like a pusher giving a school 
kid the first fix for free. Microsoft is too big for the national 
good. They control most of the desktop and are trying to extend 
their reach into more of business and entertainment. I strongly feel 
that stronger remedies are required, including splitting the company 
into three or more separate companies. I further believe that given 
the reliance of American business on Microsoft products that the 
U.S. Government should consider regulating Microsoft as a public 
utility.
    Sincerely,
    Dave Dooling
    Dave Dooling / D2 Science Communications
    555 Sparkman Drive, Suite 820C / Huntsville, AL 35816 USA
    256-890-0972 (voice & fax)
    256-830-5800 (Sharon, my wife and secretary,
    [email protected])
    [email protected] http://d2sci.com



MTC-00027803

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement proposed by Microsoft is very generous. 
The benevolent education of our youth is a good idea. Please let our 
creative corporations do their job and help America stay number one.
    Ralph Darnell



MTC-00027804

From: Dan Jenkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:02am
Subject: Remedies for Microsoft antitrust suit
    I've been a system administrator, programmer and technical 
support person for about 25 years. As Microsoft's products and 
behavior have directly affected me and my clients (and will continue 
to do so ), I must comment on the suit.
    In all my years in the industry, I have seen relatively little 
of the often-claimed innovation of which Microsoft speaks. I have 
seen competitive companies purchased and put out of 
business--eliminating competing product lines. I have seen 
information obfuscated and altered in small, undocumented ways to 
preclude competition--and to force client's to upgrade to 
maintain basic compatibility within their own companies. I have seen 
(and continue to see) severe security flaws.
    These flaws have cost my clients and our whole economy enormous 
amounts to battle.
    So, given a history of consistent, persistent abuses, I submit 
that only pervasive, unarguable remedies will cause Microsoft to 
alter its behavior.
    Microsoft's proposal to provide large amounts of their products 
for use in the school's merely demonstrated their monopolistic 
behavior. The school's would have required ongoing support and 
upgrades--which would have cost more money that poor school's 
don't have in the first place. By entrenching themselves in the 
school's, they would have deepened their hold on the mind share of 
the next generation of computer users, thereby, perpetuating their 
monopoly. In my opinion, these remedies ought to include (at least) 
the following items:
    - Prohibit bundling contracts whereby the cost of the operating 
system is included invisibly in the cost of the system. That way, 
the consumer is aware of what he is paying for, and what 
alternatives would truly cost.
    - Require formats and APIs to be documented. Microsoft uses much 
that is proprietary in their system, which can then, in turn, lock 
out competitors from creating competing programs. (The fact that 
Microsoft has the best-selling operating system with an embedded web 
browser, and the best-selling office software suite, gives them an 
almost airtight stranglehold on what is essentially a self-contained 
system.)
    Therefore, I recommend that all proprietary formats, protocols, 
etc., be opened: the API, itself, file formats for all (non-
licensed) applications, communications protocols, and anything else 
that would hinder competitors from being on a level playing field 
when writing applications for the Windows platform.
    - Separate the application development from the operating system 
development. Microsoft application developers gain an unfair 
advantage in internal knowledge of Microsoft operating systems over 
their competition.
    - Require email and web clients be separately installed from the 
operating

[[Page 28121]]

system. Both Internet Explorer and Outlook are installed by default 
on Windows platforms. Most customers do not even know other 
alternatives exist. If a new Windows system prompted to install 
these components and indicated that alternatives exist (such as 
Netscape, Opera, Eudora, and others), then customers would have the 
chance to choose alternatives. This would also potentially reduce 
some of the impact of the security flaws--as most have been due 
to the email or web browser clients Microsoft provides.
