[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27484-28121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-120503]



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: KMGREENHAW@aol.com@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: pickens--kim@hotmail.com@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:fin@mobilizationoffice.com@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: gagetman33@aol.com@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: jitrbugb@aol.com@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
    anne@annedirkse.com



MTC-00024481

From: barrie@siast.sk.ca@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;-
kegel.com.microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov@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: ddaupert@csc.com@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: ayahone@hotmail.com@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: sherbet--50@yahoo.com@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: 
bsteinhour@santeccorporation.com@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: chasmid@aol.com@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: luthered@cox.net@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: chas@evilnet.net
    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: mcgraw@cejka.com@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: MKEYSTONEFI@CS.COM@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: doodles8@pacbell.net@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,microsoftcomments@doj.ca.gov@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: aruss1@gte.net@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: ed@alcpress.com@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: RBush11235@aol.com@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: kanb--us@yahoo.com@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 = ikoelling@houston.rr.com



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: phillyfanatic@juno.com@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: rdlamb@attbi.com@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: dr2nd@aol.com@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: pd@complex.Eng.Sun.COM@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: jpence711@yahoo.com@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: CICBV@aol.com@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: niner@xel.net@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: Schulz54@aol.com@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: spookalew@hotmail.com@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: aleonczy@student.umass.edu@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
    ks-klear@swbell.net



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!
bonniew@txcyber.com



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
    languian@gte.net



MTC-00024748

From: Susie Koester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement ->
To: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
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: rubietuesday@netscape.net@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: Matt.Gilbert@PearsonEd.com@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: edteller@hotmail.com



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: alaconis@aol.com@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: Vernon.Guilford@mail.sprint.com@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: e.von.breyman@juno.com@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: Kdowsiany@aol.com@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: owsiany@buckeyeinstitute.org



MTC-00024761

From: wendyfairfield@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly endorse the current settlement.



MTC-00024762

From: verell@rahab.net@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: chstaf01@athena.louisville.edu@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: mf.mathis@gte.net@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: bkeller@calibresys.com@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: mursolo@hotmail.com@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: bickster@att.net@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: christine--doerr@hotmail.com@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: rdornbos@aol.com@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: bobnaomi@juno.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    leave ms alone



MTC-00024771

From: hrtuck@att.net@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: traines@inforefinery.com@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: gbelldabfo@aol.com@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: wa--mouse@hotmail.com@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: dcpab@Juno.com@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: csicskcj@rose-hulman.edu@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: june.allen@gte.net@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: jmd@wrkgrp.com@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: scott.a.oberle@boeing.com@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: jgsmith@jamesmith.com@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 Smith--jgsmith@jamesmith.com/
    http://www.jamesmith.com/
    jgsmith@tamu.edu http://cis.tamu.edu/systems/
opensystems/
    CC:jgsmith@jamesmith.com@inetgw



MTC-00024781

From: albaocasio@juno.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Keep settlement as it is



MTC-00024782

From: bobj@microsoft.com@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: cncco@alaska.net@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: michael.little@worldnet.att.net@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: DaynaWh@windhamhills.com@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: ormetony@hotmail.com@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: scottomalley@yahoo.com@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
    afrank@trainingcamp.net
    Visit our website at http://www.trainingcamp.net/
    ``Because you are only as good as what you know''



MTC-00024789

From: forspam2@yahoo.com@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: missbalckie@aol.com@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: barrydbloom@hotmail.com@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: Ramesh.Shah@sspsolutions.com@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: kennhat@attbi.com@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: agapa1@juno.com@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: missal101@aol.com@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: creightonlvx@juno.com@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: DmanHS@juno.com@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: chuckselk@juno.com@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: Mgostovich@triumphtx.org@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:
 dodd.harris@tricon-yum.com@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: lj25seitz@hotmail.com@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: mikekern@microsoft.com@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: RSadler@Tadv.com@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: Dessertfox@juno.com@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: jamesc@phoenixhitec.com@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: karen@Reportware.com@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: bruce--amberson@yahoo.com@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: bob@arnoldsmithins.com@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: blomsoy@harborside.com@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: todd.azzara@s1.com



MTC-00024813

From: mgb--bas@mediaone.net@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: eric@northcomp.com@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: crystal@Reportware.com@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: douggoodyear@att.net@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: aitala@olemiss.edu@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:
 kmaxwell@fabio-perini.com@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
    ptkwt@aracnet.com



MTC-00024823

From: dogjerde@worldnet.att.net@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: jenfunk@mac.com@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: shamus@industrialego.com@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: mjacobs@microsoft.com@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: morcos@hotmail.com@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: aadieringer@juno.com@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: Randy@ReportWare.com@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: idealist--@hotmail.com@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: FXR3464@AOL.COM@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: ethelp@earthlink.net@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: moodybk@iimef.usmc.mil@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:garycurtis@home.com@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
    favor@sunset.net



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
    jarod@oridian.com
    ``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: crouchsr@erlanger.org@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: IGARFINKLE@aol.com@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: vampsl@email.msn.com@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
    dkelley@mutualofenumclaw.com
    pieseczek@hotmail.com



MTC-00024856

From: DavidNXA@aol.com@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
microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
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
    pauld@wirestone.com



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
    dpschatz@home.com



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: dottilivengood@earthlink.net@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
    Basinger@mac.com



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/
    sirawebmaster@ucsd.edu
    (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/
    kgiordano@nikondev.com 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: Kdowsiany@aol.com@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: owsiany@buckeyeinstitute.org



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: johnoneill36@hotmail.com@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: abrsr@epix.net@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: Sally70596@aol.com@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: louzano@aol.com@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: Carse312@aol.com@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: dwight@ellensburg.com@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: jim@bostonvr.com@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: Philazz@aol.com@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
    philazz@aol.com



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
    rob@film.calarts.edu
    http://www.alegria.com
    rob@alegria.com



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.
tim@pamcc.com
(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: Info@pamcc.com
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
    jordiebrad@mediaone.net



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: Sharrob2@aol.com@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,governor@governor.ca.gov@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: EXKODAKER@aol.com@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: genep49@hotmail.com@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: Dirtbandit@aol.com@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: ncoley@vnet.net@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: Timothy--L--Bennington@RL.gov@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: Dirtbandit@aol.com@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: gkcook@alltel.net@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: lorddrayke@draykestower.com@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: serenity459@cs.com@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: sgmbennett@aol.com@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
    hmorgan@evansville.net



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
    theo@teka.com
    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
    ebender@iusb.edu
    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
    jkdigital@jkdigital.com
    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--ahernk@onid.orst.edu
    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
    microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
    Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller
    tormist@ag.state.ia.us
    Barb Hildebrandt
    benandbarb@qwest.net



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: GWhit79564@aol.com@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
    drdunc@earthlink.net
    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: marlenem@hyperusa.com
    hyperusa.com



MTC-00024959

From: ccarlsen1@compuserve.com@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:microsoftcomments@doj.ca.gov@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:kimpoy@microsoft.com@inetgw



MTC-00024965

From: Gwwolter@aol.com@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: gviewgran@aol.com@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
    BertHun@Hotmail.com



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: dbradley@ebenx.com@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
    christopher.donahue@pfizer.com



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: bcawcaw@aol.com@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,
    damilligan@matche.com



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: Jhilge1032@aol.com@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: GGlenday75@aol.com@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: cananns@postoffice.pacbell.net@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: grant@drbelgard.com@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: ``KWMERIE@HOTMAIL.COM'' 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: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
    FIN Mobilization Office contact information:
    Fax: 1-800-641-2255
    Email: fin@mobilizationoffice.com
    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).
microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
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: Spearlib@aol.com@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: darrell@sbsc.com
    E-mail: rkeat614@aol.com
    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
    kevin@mahana.com



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: jamespapa51@hotmail.com@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: HTOPILOWMD@aol.com@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: BunBunjr@aol.com@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: prc@duke.edu@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: adauria@colesys.com@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: bob@bob.usuhs.mil@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,bob@bob.usuhs.mil@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: arctophile@msn.com@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:arctophile@msn.com@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: register@washingtonpost.com@inetgw
To: American Atr,Microsoft ATR,ASKDOJ,president@whiteh...
Date: 1/25/02 5:08pm
Subject: A washingtonpost.com article from 
leederone1@yahoo.com
    You have been sent this message from leederone1@yahoo.com 
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: bobby_fine@entersolve.com@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:bobby_fine@entersolve.com@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: rcarruth@Tempe.tt.slb.com or 
rcarruth@slb.com
    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/�7Eesr/ecsl/index.html
    ``Why would anyone choose a tool that is the primary virus 
vector of the known universe?''--me
    CC:rcarruth@tempe.tt.slb.com@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,skeene@callahancreek.com@inetgw,tjohns...




MTC-00025076

From: FJ660@aol.com@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: jbendo@att.net@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
    tegan@ix.netcom.com
    Geodesic Tripoint
    Cupertino,CA



MTC-00025083

From: joe985@hawaii.rr.com@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: dweist@buckeye-express.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    End this now.
    CC:dweist@buckeye-express.com@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
    kleink@cortland.edu
    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 rfuchs@post.harvard.edu
    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
    hb@alum.mit.edu



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: wbergset@isd.net@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:wbergset@isd.net@inetgw



MTC-00025096

From: craigshaynak@compuserve.com@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: JonathanGoldblatt@CompuServe.Com@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:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw



MTC-00025100

From: jayreitz@hotmail.com@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:jayreitz@hotmail.com@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: mike@sax.net@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
    mike@sax.net
    CC:mike@sax.net@inetgw



MTC-00025106

From: paulp@rocketworks.com@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:paulp@rocketworks.com@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 
derick@bitflood.net 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,kentammerman@onebox.com...



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
    (jhartley3@msn.com)
    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:rick@xpedion.com



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
    t@computerbay.com 
    Phone: 602-265-1529 
    Fax: 602.532.7286



MTC-00025118

From: MikeAaron1@aol.com@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 chad.redman@yale.edu
    ITS/Admin. Sys., Yale University
    00025122--0004



MTC-00025124

From: eric@saddleback.com@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:eric@saddleback.com@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: pvieites@hotmail.com@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:pvieites@hotmail.com@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: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
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: Mark.Varsel@frit.frb.org@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: jpkazarian@leftbrainedgeeks.com
    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: jhartley3@msn.com@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: RKH110833@aol.com@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: cgreyw@aol.com@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: dale--meredith@hotmail.com@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:dale--meredith@hotmail.com@inetgw



MTC-00025151

From: cgreyw@aol.com@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: kburt2@aol.com@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: SPRURE@aol.com@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: kalawai@earthlink.net@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
    thentil@speakeasy.org
    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: C--Holloway@Juno.com@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: bsuttn@rjsonline.net@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: jonathan--tolson@hotmail.com@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: ky7x@earthlink.net@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: steve--sodos@moldev.com@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: bonwit69@aol.com@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: geschmierer@hotmail.com@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: hui.wu@ncr.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Support Microsoft and the settlement



MTC-00025177

From: epssr@prodigy.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lets leave MSN alone.



MTC-00025178

From: Louis.Sawyer@gnf.com@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: bduke@dccpub.com@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: bigrandma@Juno.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the settlement



MTC-00025181

From: buttons@eaglebutton.com@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: auntmimi12@aol.com@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: jerryg@value.net@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: rayh1933@aol.com@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: nbleyer@hotmail.com@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: theblackotter@hotmail.com@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: cmnsy@juno.com@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: doriswinfla@juno.com@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: bigelse436@hotmail.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am FOR the settlement



MTC-00025191

From: kyowva@zoomnet.net@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: kennethjguy@aol.com@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: gary.mills@mkcorp.com@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: lpropheter@Yahoo.com@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: jackhh1@hotmail.com@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: talbers@neo.rr.com@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: tandv1@mindspring.com@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: vrandall@grand.state.ut.us@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: billpucci@webtv.net@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 rdewalt@meridianksi.com 
tet@solfire.com--PCCG



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: ronaldon@bellsouth.net@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: hornswamp@yahoo.com@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: Cookiegramma@Juno.com@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
    rweeks@cableone.net
    CC:MSFIN@microsoft.com@inetgw



MTC-00025208

From: dbuckley@clevelandgear.com@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: gihuey@hotmail.com@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:gihuey@hotmail.com@inetgw



MTC-00025213

From: Karausthomasb@aol.com@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: cr--perry@hotmail.com@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: ron.baker@blackwell.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,
    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
    paul@ActionCorporation.com
    ph. 1-905-734-1780
    fx. 1-905-734-7093
    cp. 1-905-933-8616
    tf. 1-866-848-7778
    CC:MSFIN@Microsft.com



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
    philads@webintellects.net



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:MSFIN@microsoft.com@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
    - admin@shell.net.nz
    - www.shell.net.nz
    CC:petition@kegel.com@inetgw



MTC-00025228

From: GGGhosn@aol.com@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: mxw9@attbi.com@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: BeanieCBS@aol.com@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: lpb@apocalypse.org@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
    cwgraham@sai-net.com
    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
cwgraham@sai-net.com
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: jonathan--tolson@hotmail.com@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: LPhysics@aol.com@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:microsoftcomments@doj.ca.gov@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: DAHud80@aol.com@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: aauer@deadprogrammers.org@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:amy@doingood.net
    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
    scot@apple.com
    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: akadug@juno.com@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!!
    tsw@johana.com



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: OKCashel@aol.com@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: reh@grove.ufl.edu@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: RNFrank@aol.com@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: vhavin@hotmail.com@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:vhavin@hotmail.com@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
    gsebolt4@home.com



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: jmw1@saci.org
    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: jmw1@saci.org
    CC:MSFIN@microsoft.com@inetgw



MTC-00025280

From: HalnMarie@aol.com@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: pendleth@intelnet.net.gt@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